Post Reply
Page 10 of 28  •  Prev 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 28 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Why Theists Won't Think
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 10:45AM #91
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 3, 2012 -- 10:31PM, F1fan wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 3:37PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

This appears to me to be a weak attempt at posturing, to once again "prove" that atheism holds a monopoly on reason and rational thought, and call for a round of high-fives.



No, reason works because certain rules are followed.  the subject matter, and who it is, is irrelevant.  It simply happenes to be a fact that Theism has a dilemma that it is not based on any sort of facts, so has an immediate disadvantage.


Analytic thinking undermines lazy thinking -- regardless of whether it is theistic, atheistic or othewise.


Lazy thinking is lazy, or sloppy, no matter what the topic or who it is.


As for the answers, I and other posters often offer well-reasoned, very good answers. What sometimes follows in pouting protest, because the answer might not be what was expeted, or perhaps falls outside a rhetorical box.



No you don't.  You offer dogmatic views that don't measure up to reason.  Perhaps you want them to be, but that's the hardship of theism: it isn't based on facts.  The only approach a theist has is honesty.  Look at MaineCaptian's example.  Her position worksdue to humility and honesty.  As a result she earns respect from non-believers.


This isn't a theist versus atheist divide.  It is a reasonable versus unreasonable divide.  Many theists are on the side of reason, like amcolph and wohali, among others.  it is the dogmatists who fall on the unreasonable side.


After having been in, or perhaps more importanty, been an observer of -- many discussions, debates and arguments over subjects across every imaginable spectrum of the profound to the mundane, I have concluded this:


Often, just about anything can be made to sound or look good, per se, through detailed arguments. However, the truth, or rationality of a thing can sometimes best be determined by simply pulling back, and look to the conclusions it proposes.



Which is why absolutist religious claims fail.





Again, pure conjectrue and opinon on your part, mixed in with a few classic staw men. I'm not here to impress non-believers. I won't roll over and apologize for recognizing your beliefs as, well... beliefs. No better or worse than anybody else's. 


I respect you as people. But frankly, you assertions are, well, not very impressive. They all hinge upon perspective. 


For example, nobody can deny that evolution (like gravity) exists in fact. Attempts to deny that clearly are dogmatic. But what follows from that is a matter of perspective. I simply have a different perspective than you do, but you beliefs force you to veiw it only as "dogma."


And your responses indicate either you don't understand much of what is posted in response to you, or you just deliberately gloss over it and continue to make the same cliche declarations I've alreay heard 1,000 times over. 


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 10:54AM #92
F1fan
Posts: 11,668

May 4, 2012 -- 10:45AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Again, pure conjectrue and opinon on your part, mixed in with a few classic staw men. I'm not here to impress non-believers. I won't roll over and apologize for recognizing your beliefs as, well... beliefs. No better or worse than anybody else's. 



Then why didn't you point out specific errors on my part?  If your position is true, and you can show it is true by picking apart my points, then do so.


I respect you as people. But frankly, you assertions are, well, not very impressive. Begining with your bloated claim that you hold a monopoly on facts and reason.


Claiming a monopoly is the first sign of B.S. 




You are asserting a monopoly.  But we can go back and look to see who is actually using facts and reason and who is not.  You might as well bitch about people being more successful using vacuum cleaners to get rugs clean as opposed to using tweezers.  One method and tool works, while the other does not.  If it's a fact that one side uses facts and reason to a greater extent, and can show more reliable results, how can you have a legitimate complaint when we are all seeking what is true about reality?


If you make claims, yet fail to support them with facts and reason, then it is your failure given the rules we follow in basic reasoning.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 10:57AM #93
JCarlin
Posts: 6,783

May 4, 2012 -- 10:39AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

And past that even, you have a big chip on your shoulder regarding the Abrahamic Faiths, and apparently like to take every opportunity to swipe at them.


Which I think you should be free to do. 


Freedom of expression and criticism are important.


You can count on the fact that every time an Abrahamic is sexist in regard to herm faith, even something as trivial a referring to that testosterone poisoned God a "He," or women as property, or as subjugated to men, you can count on me to launch an attack on the basic misogyny of Christianity and the other Abrahamics.  Only the Jews seem to have moved into the 21st century, but they have been arguing with Abraham since day one.  I don't know enough about Baha'i to comment on its underlying sexism, but the visitors here are not presenting a favorable impression. 

J'Carlin
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't cram your foot in it and complain.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 11:02AM #94
F1fan
Posts: 11,668

May 4, 2012 -- 10:45AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

For example, nobody can deny that evolution (like gravity) exists in fact. Attempts to deny that clearly are dogmatic. But what follows from that is a matter of perspective. I simply have a different perspective than you do, but you beliefs force you to veiw it only as "dogma."



If you are referring to theistic evolution, it may be dogmatic, or may not be.  It depends upon what a person asserts, how they believe it, and how they learned to think that way.  The bottom line is that there is evidence for evolution.  None for any sort of god that is supposed to be directing it.


And your responses indicate either you don't understand much of what is posted in response to you, or you just deliberately gloss over it and continue to make the same cliche declarations I've alreay heard 1,000 times over. 



If I'm failing to understand something you say then feel free to go into more detail.  But be aware, you are asserting religious claims, and this has an immediate disadvantage in debate given the lack of evidence.  What is left for me to not understand?  Faith as a means to justify belief?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 12:41PM #95
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 4, 2012 -- 10:57AM, JCarlin wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 10:39AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

And past that even, you have a big chip on your shoulder regarding the Abrahamic Faiths, and apparently like to take every opportunity to swipe at them.


Which I think you should be free to do. 


Freedom of expression and criticism are important.


You can count on the fact that every time an Abrahamic is sexist in regard to herm faith, even something as trivial a referring to that testosterone poisoned God a "He," or women as property, or as subjugated to men, you can count on me to launch an attack on the basic misogyny of Christianity and the other Abrahamics.  Only the Jews seem to have moved into the 21st century, but they have been arguing with Abraham since day one.  I don't know enough about Baha'i to comment on its underlying sexism, but the visitors here are not presenting a favorable impression. 




Again, you seem to approach things with a preconcived hostility -- which is neither rational or fair-minded.


It's the old principle -- when all you carry is a hammer, all you're gonna see is nails.


You're welcome to your opinon. I will probably contiue to regard it as such. An opinon, and a biased one at that. 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 12:51PM #96
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 4, 2012 -- 11:02AM, F1fan wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 10:45AM, mytmouse57 wrote:

For example, nobody can deny that evolution (like gravity) exists in fact. Attempts to deny that clearly are dogmatic. But what follows from that is a matter of perspective. I simply have a different perspective than you do, but you beliefs force you to veiw it only as "dogma."



If you are referring to theistic evolution, it may be dogmatic, or may not be.  It depends upon what a person asserts, how they believe it, and how they learned to think that way.  The bottom line is that there is evidence for evolution.  None for any sort of god that is supposed to be directing it.


And your responses indicate either you don't understand much of what is posted in response to you, or you just deliberately gloss over it and continue to make the same cliche declarations I've alreay heard 1,000 times over. 



If I'm failing to understand something you say then feel free to go into more detail.  But be aware, you are asserting religious claims, and this has an immediate disadvantage in debate given the lack of evidence.  What is left for me to not understand?  Faith as a means to justify belief?




You're continued insistance that there is "no evidence" (and hence, no rational or reason to think God exists), is a matter of perspective and opinon. 


As I said, anybody can bog things down with elaborate specifics. I tend to analyize things by pulling back and looking at the bigger picture. What is, really, being proposed. 


Going around declaring bare opinion, based upon only one perspective, as objective fact, and then turning around  that vast swaths of humanity have essentially been hoodwinked by some sort of mass delusion is an incredible claim.


There is no more rational reason for me to think that Christ, Muhammed and Baha'u'llah (to name only a few) were themselves either delusional or outright willfull liars -- and that my sentient ability to reflect back upon myself and surrondings in a perceptive manner of potential understanding is just a matter of random chance and bio-organic process -- than there is reason for me to think Santa Claus really did bring me presents when I was a kid. 


You can disagree, of course, but quit having the audacity to suppose your opinon is the only rational one. 



Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 2:20PM #97
Ken
Posts: 33,859

May 4, 2012 -- 12:51PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

You're continued insistance that there is "no evidence" (and hence, no rational or reason to think God exists), is a matter of perspective and opinon.


Not at all. Evidence must meet certain criteria; otherwise, it's not evidence.


There is no more rational reason for me to think that Christ, Muhammed and Baha'u'llah (to name only a few) were themselves either delusional or outright willfull liars -- and that my sentient ability to reflect back upon myself and surrondings in a perceptive manner of potential understanding is just a matter of random chance and bio-organic process -- than there is reason for me to think Santa Claus really did bring me presents when I was a kid.


How did you go about eliminating those possibilities that you reject?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 2:54PM #98
JCarlin
Posts: 6,783

May 4, 2012 -- 12:41PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Again, you seem to approach things with a preconcived hostility -- which is neither rational or fair-minded.


Hostility I will agree to.  It is rational and based on long study of Abrahamic misogyny which I find to be one of the most important impediments to human progress.  Continuing as we chat by Christian right political activity in the USA.  They are hostile to the point of assassination to any disagreement with their Christian misogyny.  I think my hostility is justified.

J'Carlin
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't cram your foot in it and complain.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 3:18PM #99
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

May 4, 2012 -- 2:54PM, JCarlin wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 12:41PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Again, you seem to approach things with a preconcived hostility -- which is neither rational or fair-minded.


Hostility I will agree to.  It is rational and based on long study of Abrahamic misogyny which I find to be one of the most important impediments to human progress.  Continuing as we chat by Christian right political activity in the USA.  They are hostile to the point of assassination to any disagreement with their Christian misogyny.  I think my hostility is justified.




Hostility is hardly never justified. It tends to cloud the mind.


I still assert my perception that your "long study" involved walking around with a hammer. So, of course, you found many nails. 


The Christian political right is a red herring. I don't care about instances of bastardized practice. Once can cherry pick a million of those, regardless of the topic.


That's not rational. 


Neither am I going to assume that everything that comes from that particular quarter of society is bad, simply because I don't like some of the particulars -- or because some of ideas coming from the so-called "Christian right" might offend the delicate sensbilities of political correctness. Which is itself,  ironically, one of the most smug and intolerant viewpoints humanity has ever seen.


That said, nor will I, being a fair-minded and rational person fairly adept at emotionally detached and diplomatic thinking, simply reject everything that comes from P.C. quarters. It, too, has produced some fruit.


Good ideas come from all angles. I don't discriminate.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 4:46PM #100
Fodaoson
Posts: 11,158

Apr 27, 2012 -- 8:23PM, JCarlin wrote:

From Scientific American reporting on a study published in Science.

Excerpt:

Analytic thinking undermines belief because, as cognitive psychologists have shown, it can override intuition. And we know from past research that religious beliefs—such as the idea that objects and events don't simply exist but have a purpose—are rooted in intuition. "Analytic processing inhibits these intuitions, which in turn discourages religious belief," Norenzayan explains.

It seems that there are good reasons for religious members posting homilies rather than reasoned responses to our questions.  They must have strong intuitions that thinking is dangerous.    




Apr 27, 2012 -- 10:35PM, Blü wrote:


teilhard


What an odd blanket (essentially bigotted ... ???)  Insult


Then I'll look forward to your well-researched and well-reasoned rebuttal of the finding.





Apr 27, 2012 -- 10:04PM, teilhard wrote:


What an odd blanket (essentially bigotted ... ???)  Insult ...


I am a "Religious Person" who posts here, and I am also well trained and experienced in The Natural Sciences ... and I THINK -- very well, and often ...




The Title of the thread is essentially wrong  and  two the  three quote posted are easily rebutted, Tielhard already  has.   The Science article begins “People who are intuitive thinkers are more likely to be religious, but getting them to think analytically even in subtle ways decreases the strength of their belief, according to a new study in Science.”


Analytically thinking in in subject area weaken some belief and strengthens other areas.


“. "To understand religion in humans," Gervais says, "you need to accommodate for the fact that there are many millions of believers and nonbelievers."


Religion is more than just theism , Even Christianity is about more than “God/Christ” .  Atheism is like saying “there is no human like life form any where else in the Universe”.   Both require a belief  in a negative.


 

“I seldom make the mistake of arguing with people for whose opinions I have no respect.” Edward Gibbon
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 10 of 28  •  Prev 1 ... 8 9 10 11 12 ... 28 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook