Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by longknife, Nov 20, 2014.
It is interesting, isn't it?
Yes, the concept of religious based bigotry is quite interesting. disgusting, but nonetheless interesting.
Especially when it is known (judicially) that Atheism is also a religion and thus would be included in the reign of bigotry that you wrote about.
If that was its intention, it didn't succeed.
Atheism isn't a religion. there is no dogma, there is no worship, there is no deity.
apparently to theists all atheists are the same. Such generalizations are a distinct characteristic of bigotry and ignorance.
Most atheists on the other hand, recognize that there are all kinds of theists, some more accepting and tolerant than others.
But, I do agree that teaching children to think for themselves, to apply logic, to differentiate between science and the supernatural, to question, to accept that not all questions can be answered, to explore, to learn, to empower facts to shape perspectives, are all the definitive result of brainwashing.
Go back and read the supreme court decision... regarding what constitutes a religion.
Bigotry as exercised by Atheists who generalize and throw out a blanket accusation against Christians.
So you believe that all questions can be answered? Cool.. Check this out and then give us the answers:
In a footnote from one judge, commenting on one segment of the atheist spectrum? Yes, you might take your own advice in reviewing the single case.
Bigotry is a human characteristic, not bound by religion or ideology or demographics or race or any other societal distinction.
You misread. I said "to accept that not all questions can be answered".
Post the alleged quote from the judge instead of making the assertion that it is there.
Yes.. you did say what you quoted above. Keeping in context what you said, "But, I do agree that teaching children to think for themselves, to apply logic, to differentiate between science and the supernatural, to question, to accept that not all questions can be answered, to explore, to learn, to empower facts to shape perspectives, are all the definitive result of brainwashing." So teaching children to accept that not all questions can be answered is a definitive result of brainwashing.
Now one more time.. can you answer the questions that were posed in the video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiYCgVKioI4 Also: Teaching a child to apply logic would also fall within that category of definitive brainwashing.
You were the one that brought it up in the first place without a reference. Why don't you post the SCOTUS decision that you claim called atheism a religion?
How do you figure? explore, learn, apply logic, differentiate, use of facts balanced with the knowledge that not all questions can yet be answered.
to me, questing for answers to unanswered questions is the raison d'etre a sapience.
Teaching a child to utilize problem solving skills is definitive brainwashing? that is simply a stupid assertion.
As to those unanswered questions:
why does hot water freeze faster than cool water? mpemba effect a composite of a number of factors under very limited conditions. Hot water ice cubes will not freeze faster than cold water ice cubes in your freezer.
Here's another one:
Wim Hof, the iceman able to withstand extreme cold: (he didn't get to the top of Everest)
On 18 April, Hof got the test results regarding the "The influence of concentration/meditation on autonomic nervous system activity and the innate immune response" case study, demonstrating that he is able to directly influence his own Autonomic Nervous System and Immune System. Hof seems to be able to raise his cortisol levels and lower the amount of cytokines (inflammatory mediators) just by using his meditation techniques. A different study on Hof while immersed in ice showed that Hof suppressed the cytokines by 100 percent.
I will pass on that one as the decision is not verbatim but rather is the interpretation that has been rendered by many people including legal professionals.
Enjoy the search, but if you are waiting on science, then don't hold your breath. Remember, science cannot even offer a definitive solution to the problem of defining 'life'.
With all of your learning in science you have not determined as scientists have theorized that human existence is the result of random chemical actions... but they don't know where the chemicals came from?
You made that assertion. ""But, I do agree that teaching children to think for themselves, to apply logic, to differentiate between science and the supernatural, to question, to accept that not all questions can be answered, to explore, to learn, to empower facts to shape perspectives, are all the definitive result of brainwashing.""
And your PROOF is where?
And your PROOF is where? You cited several conditions but did not answer the question of 'why'?
Yes, but the many legal professionals" is only a few, while the other people are all theists who have no legal skill.
The quest for knowledge never ends. Your example is disingenuous since while there is debate on an unequivocal definition of life, there is no debate on the basic characteristics of life.
Science is the MEANS to answering questions. It is not the answer itself, unlike religion.
for some reason you have this idea that science must be able to answer any and all questions or it isn't valid.
When religion is confronted with unanswerable questions it ALWAYS defers to omnipotent omniscience. The god of the gaps argument has been rather thoroughly rejected.
Apparently sarcastic contradiction is difficult for some to identify.
Why can Hof directly manipulate his Autonomic and Immune systems? I don't know why he spent years developing this skill, just like I don't know why a person decides to become tiddlywinks champion of the world, or why Picasso painted, or Beethoven composed.
But no worries, I am familiar with your contradictory double standards of "PROOF".
Talking through the side of your mouth again. Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Supreme Court Justice) stated in a speech she gave: "Artworks in my chambers display in Hebrew letters the command from Deuteronomy: Zedek, zedek tirdof - "Justice, justice shalt thou pursue." These postings serve as ever-present reminders of what judges must do "that they may thrive." In the Supreme Court of the United States, with difficult cases on which reasonable minds may divide, sometimes intensely, one's sense of Justice may demand a departure from the majority's view, expressed in a dissenting opinion."
So you see, You are mistaken again. I need not say further.
Nice total cop out. Why am I not surprised.
You really don't know what the SCOTUS case was all about that you claim ruled that humanism was a religion.
Well, I notice you have thrown out quite a few cop outs yourself by refusing to show proof that I am wrong.
Your continuing and intransigent insistence on demanding proof you are wrong as opposed to you supplying proof you are correct is noted.
Given your faith and its supposed incumbent morality, your intellectual dishonest approach seems somewhat hypocritical.
And your useless opinions are so noted.
DODGE BALL!!! DODGE BALL!!!
YOUR New name dude!!
What is the definition of "viable" and "practicable"?
Rule number #2: Recognize your weaknesses.
"Your continuing and intransigent insistence on demanding proof you are wrong as opposed to you supplying proof you are correct is noted."
the above is an observation of your posting behavior, not an opinion. \
The use of fallacies is considered intellectually dishonest by most intelligent individuals. while I grant it is almost impossible to avoid their use totally, my observations and interactions with you definitely indicate a consistent pattern of usage.
Appeal to ignorance, burden of proof, circular logic, denying the antecedent, strawman, genetic fallacy all seem to be part of your repertoire of fallacious argument.
What rulebook is that written in?
Wrong! The highlighted text converts the observation into an opinion. "is noted" is an action of yours,,, not mine.
I am not required by any law, code, rule, regulation, TOS or other official declarations which require me or anyone else to be obligated by logic. If you believe that I am, then please provide a link to such official declaration that specifically specifies me by name and or specifying "all people" as the subject of such declaration.
See my paragraph above.
No, "is noted" is what one does when making an observation.
And there you have it. (you really should look up "burden of proof")
Fallacies are statements that might sound reasonable or superficially true but are actually flawed or dishonest. When readers detect them, these logical fallacies backfire by making the audience think the writer is (a) unintelligent or (b) deceptive. It is important to avoid them in your own arguments, and it is also important to be able to spot them in others' arguments so a false line of reasoning won't fool you. Think of this as intellectual kung-fu: the vital art of self-defense in a debate.
Consider this probability.
A member of a forum unreasonably and irrationally ignores all evidence of a specific debated reality in a complete and total illogical manner which drives those who use logic and reason in their debating.....for what possible gain?
WHO or WHAT is to gain for constant and continual debate upon a Topic?
WHO or WHAT actually benefits from a Monetary standpoint?
NOW....perhaps you might understand what is PROBABLE.
If you are suggesting that when you accuse someone of committing a fallacy that they are submitting a dishonest or flawed response, then the burden of PROOF shifts to you requiring you to show PROOF that the statement is dishonest or flawed. Opinion does not constitute proof.
Or subjugation depending upon ones perspective.
One thing I don't like about those words and neat graphics is that it is not mentioned that our solar system is in the Orion spur.
Overall, it is still a good post, regardless.
Separate names with a comma.