God, why don't people believe in the idea?

[gwprod12]

This is exactly why you're dishonest. You dont seem to be able to work with information without somehow mischaracterizing it. I didnt say you were lying about your beliefs. I said it is an alternative explanation, as opposed to believing in the most blatantly unfounded nonsense imaginable (thus, gullibility).

 

Lying about one's beliefs isnt contradictory, it's perfectly obvious. Because someone takes comfort in pushing their agenda, they espouse that agenda, while not truly believing it. Or at the very least, not practicing it while demanding others do so. Stalin is an excellent specimen. Stalin was as anti-communist as one could get while still pushing the communist agenda. He didnt live like a communist, he didnt believe in the wellfare of his people, he lived like a king while his "comrades" suffered. Lying about one's beliefs can be better summed up as hypocrisy.

 

Now, I will not claim to know whether or not you're a shrewd liar about your supposed experience, or simply dumb as a sack of hair. I guess it's up to you to decide. What I can say for sure, is that to take a piece of information, twist it and pull it and manipulate it until it has lost it's intended meaning, then refuting it, is the mark of the charlatan. This you do on an hourly basis.

 

Hope that explains it. Cheers.

[brainbone]

The father wasn't "praising God." You just added to the name calling. You are a father yourself, how would you like someone misrepresenting you and calling you belligerent to your children?

 

I didn't say manicuring the lawn "while praising god", I said manicuring the lawn "and praising god" -- not necessarily at the same time, though I understand your confusion -- bad writing on my part.

 

Still, my point remains the same, and yes my intention towards the father is that his delusion of faith very well could affect his critical thinking, and yes, lead to impairments in his parenting. Certainly no fact or evidence to back it up, other than growing up in such a family as I'm describing, so also very prejudicial with a good amount projection... but "name calling"? Nope.

[gwprod12]

To address brainbone's point... the blog about this whole situation is covered in pious bs... it might possibly be misrepresenting the father, as the mother or the sister could have written the content. That is unknown. Someone is praising God a bit too much, in any case. Jesus wouldnt like it, that's for sure.

[3nigma]

...my intention towards the father is that his delusion of faith very well could affect his critical thinking, and yes, lead to impairments in his parenting...

This line of rationale can be applied to anything, and is obviouly overreaching at best.

 

"Teens that do school shootings play video games, so video games must be evil."

"People that are terrorists are Muslims, so Islam must be terrorism."

Insert broad generalization here.

 

"People of faith could be in delusion or effect their critical thinking, therefore they have impairments in their parenting."

 

Try this one: People who are atheist/agnostic don't believe in objecive morality, therefore they have no morals, and their children will be raised and become murderers, rapists, and thieves.

 

These statements, including the final one, are riddled with holes. You cannot accuse others of faulty logic and spew out statements like this one.

 

You have two ears and one mouth: use them proportionately. To be more relevant: Think more, speak less.

 

-3nigma

[gwprod12]

That is true, it isnt fair to make gross assumptions about people by their associations. It is fair to state that people who yield to a supposed higher power are abbrogating their responsibilities in a general way. And a consistent abbrogator of responsibility is what we in the northwest like to call an irresponsible person. Irresponsibility predicates negligence. The fact is, people who're convinced that leprechans are always going to save the day are people who have no consideration for the wellfare of themselves or others.

 

Machiavelli once said that faith in God is a fine thing, but God is an uncertain ally. Should we trust that God will protect us from the flood-waters, or should we build dikes and dams and spillways to make God's job less hard? God respects free will, and in order to do that, God must allow people to mind their own stores. (Paraphrased).

 

Or, as someone else once said "God helps those who help themselves".

 

Or, in my words "If you'd take responsibility for your own life, you wouldnt have to be constantly bleating to God for assistance."

 

An objective morality is what the world thinks is absolutely right and absolutely wrong. It is absolutely wrong to kill (yet american soldiers are doing it every day). It is absolutely wrong to steal. (A dying man should die instead of stealing the medicine he needs to save himself). These are objective morals. Having morals that respect the spirit of the law and the well-being of others are what you call a "lack of morality". I'll take your lack of morals over your God's wrath any day.

[brainbone]

These statements, including the final one, are riddled with holes. You cannot accuse others of faulty logic and spew out statements like this one.

 

If you continued to read, you would have noticed I already plead guilty to prejudgment and projection... though it looks like you had a great deal of hot air you needed to let escape anyway, so I'm glad i could help.

 

My assertion that faith >can< (not will) erode critical thinking is a fair one. Whether it eroded the subject in question is where I certainly was over-reaching.

 

You have two ears and one mouth: use them proportionately. To be more relevant: Think more, speak less.

 

Get off your high horse.

[killbot1000]

An objective morality is what the world thinks is absolutely right and absolutely wrong. It is absolutely wrong to kill (yet american soldiers are doing it every day). It is absolutely wrong to steal. (A dying man should die instead of stealing the medicine he needs to save himself). These are objective morals. Having morals that respect the spirit of the law and the well-being of others are what you call a "lack of morality". I'll take your lack of morals over your God's wrath any day.

 

 

Good post!

[3nigma]

That is true, it isnt fair to make gross assumptions about people by their associations. It is fair to state that people who yield to a supposed higher power are abbrogating their responsibilities in a general way. And a consistent abbrogator of responsibility is what we in the northwest like to call an irresponsible person. Irresponsibility predicates negligence. The fact is, people who're convinced that leprechans are always going to save the day are people who have no consideration for the wellfare of themselves or others.

You just did the exact same thing all over again.

 

Your train of thought:

People who yield to a higher power = abbrogating responsibilities in general

Abbrogater of responsibility = irresponsibility

Irresponsibility = negligence

These people then all of a sudden believe in leprechauns.

Nice.

 

And 'round and 'round we go . Keep chasing your tail, you almost have it in your grip...

An objective morality is what the world thinks is absolutely right and absolutely wrong. It is absolutely wrong to kill (yet american soldiers are doing it every day). It is absolutely wrong to steal. (A dying man should die instead of stealing the medicine he needs to save himself). These are objective morals. Having morals that respect the spirit of the law and the well-being of others are what you call a "lack of morality". I'll take your lack of morals over your God's wrath any day.

{my emphasis added}

Ironically, this is my belief system summed up perfectly. Adhering to the intended purposes of a law/rule, rather than "by the book" across the board. For example: I would not stop at a stop sign in the middle of a desert, if I can see 45 miles in every direction that nobody is present. Additionally, I would not use my turn signal. The *intention* of these items does not apply in that circumstance. You would find that we agree on most things, if you were more open minded .

My assertion that faith >can< (not will) erode critical thinking is a fair one.

Absolutely.

Whether it eroded the subject in question is where I certainly was over-reaching.

Agreed.

Get off your high horse.

I deliberately approached my tone with this forum on a 'high horse.' The reason for this decision is due to the same tone I have observed in many posts from yourself and others in this forum, directed towards the minority Christian camp, as appropriate as some comments may be. (Don't get me started on how annoyed I am with Christians).

 

People think they can walk on Christians on a high horse. Don't be so high as to think you can't be approached on the same level.

 

-3nigma

[gwprod12]

I dont even know how to respond to you, so I wont bother.

 

Here are a few references:

 

http://www.dictionary.com/

http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Stefan_W...logicintro.html

[3nigma]

Your train of thought:

People who yield to a higher power = abbrogating responsibilities in general

Abbrogater of responsibility = irresponsibility

Irresponsibility = negligence

These people then all of a sudden believe in leprechauns.

Nice.

 

And 'round and 'round we go . Keep chasing your tail, you almost have it in your grip...

I dont even know how to respond to you, so I wont bother.

 

Here are a few references:

http://www.dictionary.com/

http://people.hofstra.edu/faculty/Stefan_W...logicintro.html

From your "logical" assertions above, it is interesting to note that you would reference a lesson on "logic."

 

I am detecting a tone of resignation in your posts. Use this extra time you now have to do a little more study.

 

-3nigma

[gwprod12]

I am resigned, because when someone is intentionally obtuse or dishonest when reading what someone else has written, it makes the entire argument moot. You will never be willing to listen to any voice but your own. So why bother?

[3nigma]

How appropriate: I feel the exact same way about your approach to this conversation in contrast to my own, lol.

[gwprod12]

Well, there are better ways to discuss things. Such as not taking what someone else has written, cutting and pasting and generally molding it to your own viewpoint, accusing them of saying it, then refuting it to prove how wrong they are.

[LifeDroidGenesis7007]

It is interesting how religion, either the belief in or the discussion about, can cause all sorts of people to attack each other physically or with forum posts.

 

Is it the job of rational and logical people to inform religious people of their irrationality? Is it the job of religious people to inform the rational people about their lack of faith? Is the job of both to judge each other?

[killbot1000]

It is interesting how religion, either the belief in or the discussion about, can cause all sorts of people to attack each other physically or with forum posts.

 

Is it the job of rational and logical people to inform religious people of their irrationality? Is it the job of religious people to inform the rational people about their lack of faith? Is the job of both to judge each other?

 

I don't know. It seems like there's nothing wrong with judging somebody, just as long as you don't let it get too far. But if somebody is wrong, its ok to tell them so. Atleast thats what I think. I have been wrong more times than I can count, I like being told I'm wrong when I ACTUALLY AM so I try to extend that courtesy to other people.

 

When one says that the earth is only 10,000 years old (because of the bible) regardless of the mountain of scientific evidence to indicate otherwise, I feel like it kind of is my job to say they are wrong. Its ignorance, and it has no place in society.