Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9038 total)
124 online now:
PaulK, Tangle (2 members, 122 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,670 Year: 3,316/14,102 Month: 257/724 Week: 15/91 Day: 0/3 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is religion good for us?
dronestar
Member (Idle past 75 days)
Posts: 1384
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 121 of 181 (581218)
09-14-2010 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by ringo
09-10-2010 2:36 PM


Religion = Hitler?
ringo writes:

The point stands: Critical thinking produces different answers for different people.

Errr, while I can agree with this brand new statement, that's not the point that you have been arguing. Let me remind you of your original argument and example, that a world catastrophe can be a product of critical thinking . . .

ringo writes:

The Alsace-Lorraine example, arguably a product of critical thanking, led to two world wars - arguably a huge net loss for critical thinking.

ringo writes:

There has been no change in the argument.

Seems like a change to me, you asserted your position and then said it wasn't. Please review . . .

ringo writes:

The Alsace-Lorraine example, arguably a product of critical thanking, led to two world wars - arguably a huge net loss for critical thinking.

. . . has been changed to . . .

ringo writes:

No. My argument is that CONFLICTING CONCLUSIONS, all based on critical thinking, can produce horrible deaths.

. . . and this week it seems you replaced CONFLICTING CONCLUSIONS with the term "lebensraum":

Seemingly, you now write it was lebensraum (additional territory deemed necessary to a nation), BASED ON CRITICAL THINKING, that brought about 50 million killed, more civilians died than soldiers, horrible deaths from firestorms, explosions, vaporizations, suffocation, starvation, etc, etc, etc., AND Germany's ultimate SELF-DESTRUCTION? Ringo, you are arguing that the actions necessary for a nation's SURVIVAL, that contradictorily and directly caused it's own SELF-DESTRUCTION, are based on critical thinking? Such a lopsided FAILURE in broad intellectual criteria (such as CLARITY, CREDIBILITY, ACCURACY, PRECISION, RELEVANCE, DEPTH, BREADTH, SIGNIFICANCE and FAIRNESS) can only be LAUGHABLY defined by the term "critical thinking".

Additionally, I noted you are attempting to also re-define "Fairness" as a fuzzy (and apparently wholly SELFISH) concept. Wow. From your following example, it seems you want me to believe that the result of 6 million killed, horrible deaths from suffocation, starvation, beatings, shootings, gassings, etc, AND helped bring about Germany's own SELF-DESTRUCTION, can somehow be ACCURATELY and HONESTLY described as being "Fair" . . .

ringo writes:

Yes, the Nazis were being "fair" to the German people, protecting them from Jews in the same way they would protect them from disease.

It appears you are now using disingenuous arguments (anathema to critical thinking) to support your desperate position.

ringo writes:

The problem was with the premise . . .

The premise was not a product of critical thinking:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking


This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ringo, posted 09-10-2010 2:36 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by ringo, posted 09-14-2010 5:31 PM dronestar has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19078
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 122 of 181 (581230)
09-14-2010 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by dronestar
09-14-2010 4:18 PM


Re: Religion = Hitler?
dronester writes:

ringo writes:

The point stands: Critical thinking produces different answers for different people.


Errr, while I can agree with this brand new statement, that's not the point that you have been arguing.

There's nothing "new" about that statement. I first made it back in Re: Religion = Bonbons (Message 92).

dronester writes:

Seemingly, you now write it was lebensraum (additional territory deemed necessary to a nation), BASED ON CRITICAL THINKING, that brought about 50 million killed, more civilians died than soldiers, horrible deaths from firestorms, explosions, vaporizations, suffocation, starvation, etc, etc, etc., AND Germany's ultimate SELF-DESTRUCTION?


Yes, that's what I've been saying all along. Germany's critical thinking produced the conclusion that they needed a big chunk of Russia for lebensraum. Russia's critical thinking produced a conclusion that they weren't going to give it up.

dronester writes:

Ringo, you are arguing that the actions necessary for a nation's SURVIVAL, that contradictorily and directly caused it's own SELF-DESTRUCTION, are based on critical thinking?


Of course. If critical thinking can produce conflicting answers - and I think you've agreed that it can - then clearly both answers can't be equally successful.

dronester writes:

Additionally, I noted you are attempting to also re-define "Fairness" as a fuzzy (and apparently wholly SELFISH) concept.


"Fairness" is a fuzzy and largely selfish concept. Real solutions to real problems are seldom "fair" to everybody. If critical thinking could only produce decisions that effected everybody equally, it wouldn't be very useful.

I asked you before to explain how the decisions of Germany, Russia, etc. differ from critical thinking. Your only argument so far has been circular, that it couldn't have been critical thinking because it produced bad results.

I've made two statements about critical thinking in this thread, which may be causing some of your confusion:

  1. Some people don't use critical thinking and probably can't be made to.
  2. People who do use critical thinking aren't guaranteed to be right.
For those reasons, my point is that trying to "replace" religion with critical thinking won't necessarily make the world a better place.


Life is like a Hot Wheels car. Sometimes it goes behind the couch and you can't find it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by dronestar, posted 09-14-2010 4:18 PM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by dronestar, posted 09-16-2010 12:53 PM ringo has responded

  
dronestar
Member (Idle past 75 days)
Posts: 1384
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 123 of 181 (581583)
09-16-2010 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 122 by ringo
09-14-2010 5:31 PM


Discourage religion, encourage critical thinking
Okay Ringo, I am beginning to repeat my points. If you have nothing new to add, I'll let you have the last word.

ringo writes:

The point stands: Critical thinking produces different answers for different people.

ringo writes:

There's nothing "new" about that statement. I first made it back in Re: Religion = Bonbons (Message 92).

Not quite. The word "different" isn't necessarily the same as "conflicting" or "opposite". From your Message 92:

ringo writes:

You could easily have two parties using all of their critical thinking skills and both coming to the conclusion to exterminate the other.

If you are writing about SELFISH, INDIVIDUALIZED, COMPARTMENTALIZED "thinking" that does NOT use CLARITY, CREDIBILITY, ACCURACY, PRECISION, RELEVANCE, DEPTH, BREADTH, SIGNIFICANCE and FAIRNESS, then, by its very definition (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking), it is NOT "critical thinking".

Thus, your examples of Alsace-Lorraine and lebensraum do not fit the definitions of critical thinking:

Irrational, disingenuous and selfish premises (the Nazis were being "fair" to the German people, protecting them from Jews in the same way they would protect them from disease), Germany failing in its intended lebensraum goal, and the self-destruction of Germany is ample evidence that critical thinking (CLARITY, CREDIBILITY, ACCURACY, PRECISION, RELEVANCE, DEPTH, BREADTH, SIGNIFICANCE and FAIRNESS) was NOT applied.

ringo writes:

Your only argument so far has been circular, that it couldn't have been critical thinking because it produced bad results.

My ONLY argument? ONLY? Incorrect. See my paragraph above your quote. Also, my posts have REPEATEDLY linked http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking's broad intellectual criteria (such as CLARITY, CREDIBILITY, ACCURACY, PRECISION, RELEVANCE, DEPTH, BREADTH, SIGNIFICANCE and FAIRNESS) that your examples have not comprised.

By ignoring the criteria for critical thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking), our discussion cannot move forward.

ringo writes:

I've made two statements about critical thinking in this thread, . . .

No. You made at least THREE statements about critical thinking. The one we are debating is either:

ringo writes:

The Alsace-Lorraine example, arguably a product of critical thanking, led to two world wars - arguably a huge net loss for critical thinking.

. . . or this one:

ringo writes:

My argument is that conflicting conclusions, all based on critical thinking, can produce horrible deaths, etc.

ringo writes:

If critical thinking can produce conflicting answers - and I think you've agreed that it can . . .

Where/when did I specifically agree to that? ("different" isn't necessarily "conflicting")

ringo writes:

. . . then clearly both answers can't be equally successful.

Err, Germany wasn't successful. They kinda lost the war. Remember all the corpses, damaged buildings, and angry Jews? Why, a person couldn't buy a decent wienerschnitzel in all of Frankfurt.

ringo writes:

"Fairness" is a fuzzy and largely selfish concept. Real solutions to real problems are seldom "fair" to everybody. If critical thinking could only produce decisions that effected everybody equally, it wouldn't be very useful.

I am at a loss for words.

Lastly:

ringo writes:

. . . my point is that trying to "replace" religion with critical thinking won't necessarily make the world a better place.

Then your point is contradictive because you previously wrote:

ringo writes:

Dogma of any kind should be discouraged. Critical thinking should be encouraged.

Dogma of any kind should be discouraged and critical thinking should be encouraged. We can at least agree on this general statement, yes?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by ringo, posted 09-14-2010 5:31 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 09-16-2010 2:31 PM dronestar has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19078
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 124 of 181 (581592)
09-16-2010 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by dronestar
09-16-2010 12:53 PM


Re: Discourage religion, encourage critical thinking
dronester writes:

The word "different" isn't necessarily the same as "conflicting" or "opposite".


Are you going to resort to semantic nitpicking now? If critical thinking can produce different answers for different people, then it can produce conflicting answers. "Fairness" is not a universal concept. Each critically-thought-out answer has it's own basis of fairness. There's no reason why one person's idea of fairness can't conflict with another person's idea of fairness.

dronester writes:

Thus, your examples of Alsace-Lorraine and lebensraum do not fit the definitions of critical thinking:

Irrational, disingenuous and selfish premises (the Nazis were being "fair" to the German people, protecting them from Jews in the same way they would protect them from disease), Germany failing in its intended lebensraum goal, and the self-destruction of Germany is ample evidence that critical thinking (CLARITY, CREDIBILITY, ACCURACY, PRECISION, RELEVANCE, DEPTH, BREADTH, SIGNIFICANCE and FAIRNESS) was NOT applied.


What that shows is that schoolboy definitions of critical thinking don't have much application in the real world.

You have not shown, or even attempted to show, how your version of critical thinking would have led Gemany, Russia, etc. to different behaviour. What "should" Germany have done about its lebensraum problem? What "should" Russia have done when confronted by an expansionist Germany? Even if one side or the other had irrational elements in its thinking, how does that make the other side's thinking less critical?

dronester writes:

ringo writes:

If critical thinking can produce conflicting answers - and I think you've agreed that it can . . .


Where/when did I specifically agree to that? ("different" isn't necessarily "conflicting")

I said "can".

Allow me to rephrase: I hope you're sensible enough to agree that critical thinking can produce conflicting answers.

If you agree, I'd like you to explain why you think conflicting answers can't produce conflict.

dronester writes:

Dogma of any kind should be discouraged and critical thinking should be encouraged. We can at least agree on this general statement, yes?


I'm the one who said it, so yes, I can agree with it.

But you're losing track of the topic. The question is whether or not religion is good for us. I'm saying that religion is not necessarily a source of conflict and religion is not the only source of conflict. World War Two was fought for mostly non-religious reasons.

While critical thinking is better than dogmatic thinking in general, it is not a panacea. You have yet to show that it reliably produces an improvement in human behaviour.

Edited by ringo, : Added quotation marks.


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by dronestar, posted 09-16-2010 12:53 PM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 125 by frako, posted 09-16-2010 3:13 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 126 by dronestar, posted 09-17-2010 12:24 PM ringo has responded

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2931
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 125 of 181 (581604)
09-16-2010 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by ringo
09-16-2010 2:31 PM


Re: Discourage religion, encourage critical thinking
I said "can".

Allow me to rephrase: I hope you're sensible enough to agree that critical thinking can produce conflicting answers.

If you agree, I'd like you to explain why you think conflicting answers can't produce conflict.

weeding out religion would probably reduce some confilct but not all of it neither would critical thinking, as long as there are humans there will be ware be it for religion greed, pride, nationalety, race ..... to end conflict you would haveto weed out all of that and i dont think that is going to happen anytime soon. and even if you would weed all that out i think the human race would find something else to fight about one human is smart a mass of them is a herd of sheep


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 09-16-2010 2:31 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
dronestar
Member (Idle past 75 days)
Posts: 1384
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 126 of 181 (581765)
09-17-2010 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by ringo
09-16-2010 2:31 PM


Re: Discourage religion, encourage critical thinking
dronester writes:

The word "different" isn't necessarily the same as "conflicting" or "opposite".

ringo writes:

Are you going to resort to semantic nitpicking now?

It seems a good portion of our argument rests on this point. How curious that you are suddenly trying to minimize its importance by trivializing my discernment.

ringo writes:

If critical thinking can produce different answers for different people, then it can produce conflicting answers.

You are repeating yourself, you already used the following ridiculous example:

ringo writes:

You could easily have two parties using all of their critical thinking skills and both coming to the conclusion to exterminate the other.

.

ringo writes:

"Fairness" is not a universal concept. Each critically-thought-out answer has it's own basis of fairness. There's no reason why one person's idea of fairness can't conflict with another person's idea of fairness.

(See * and ** below) You are repeating yourself, you already used the following disingenuous example:

ringo writes:

the Nazis were being "fair" to the German people, protecting them from Jews in the same way they would protect them from disease.

.

ringo writes:

What that shows is that schoolboy definitions of critical thinking don't have much application in the real world.

Oh puhlease. Since my message #106, I've repeatedly touted the site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking. Sometimes I placed it several times in one message. In response, you fully ignored it . . . till now. After 18 messages, with nowhere left to hide, you suddenly deride it as "schoolboy definitions". Your stale disparagement fully acknowledges a desperate counter-argument.

ringo writes:

You have not shown, or even attempted to show, how your version of critical thinking would have led Gemany, Russia, etc. to different behaviour.

I have already stated that Germany's lebensraum was an irrational premise to begin with. Yet, you continue to ask me to create a four-sided triangle using critical thinking.

ringo writes:

Allow me to rephrase: I hope you're sensible enough to agree that critical thinking can produce conflicting answers.

Apparently, neither the "schoolboy definition" of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking NOR I are sensible enough to agree that critical thinking can produce conflicting answers such as this gem:

ringo writes:

You could easily have two parties using all of their critical thinking skills and both coming to the conclusion to exterminate the other.

.

ringo writes:

While critical thinking is better than dogmatic thinking in general . . .

"In general"? Are you saying there ARE exceptions when DOGMA is BETTER than critical thinking? Really?

ringo writes:

. . . You have yet to show that it reliably produces an improvement in human behaviour.

Since you have already given your general approval FOR critical thinking (below), I don't know what more you are asking from me. I hesitate to offer any MORE mundane examples of buying cereal from a grocery store.

ringo writes:

I think it's a good idea to teach critical thinking and hope it takes.

ringo writes:

Critical thinking should be encouraged.

ringo writes:

Critical thinking is good for factual matters like evolution . . .

ringo writes:

. . . the use of critical thinking should be encouraged for those areas where it is applicable.

(* Fairness, ethic of reciprocity, or The Golden Rule IS UNIVERSAL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule. This is off-topic)
(** Fairness" b. Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Fairness)

Edited by dronester, : clarity


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by ringo, posted 09-16-2010 2:31 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by ringo, posted 09-17-2010 2:52 PM dronestar has responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19078
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 127 of 181 (581789)
09-17-2010 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by dronestar
09-17-2010 12:24 PM


Re: Discourage religion, encourage critical thinking
dronester writes:

ringo writes:

If critical thinking can produce different answers for different people, then it can produce conflicting answers.


You are repeating yourself, you already used the following ridiculous example:

ringo writes:

You could easily have two parties using all of their critical thinking skills and both coming to the conclusion to exterminate the other.


Please point out how it's ridiculous instead of wasting my time with empty accusations.

dronester writes:

I have already stated that Germany's lebensraum was an irrational premise to begin with.


You may have stated that but you haven't explained why. Instead of just touting critical thinking, why don't you use some? I already asked you what solution you would propose to Germany's problems that would have been "fair" to all parties. You haven't answered at all.

dronester writes:

ringo writes:

While critical thinking is better than dogmatic thinking in general . . .


"In general"? Are you saying there ARE exceptions when DOGMA is BETTER than critical thinking? Really?

Of course. I've already given examples of critical thinking producing bad results. You haven't even tried to refute them. And ideas such as "loving thy neighbour" can produce good results whether they're internalized or just followed dogmatically. So yes, clearly dogma can produce better results than critical thinking in some cases.

dronester writes:

Since you have already given your general approval FOR critical thinking (below), I don't know what more you are asking from me.


I've been asking you for a while to address the topic: "Is religion good for us?" Some of the points I have been trying to make include:
  • Critical thinking doesn't always produce "good" results.
  • Religion doesn't always produce "bad" results.
  • You can't "replace" religion with critical thinking.

You haven't addressed any of those points.

Stop shouting, think before you post and answer the damn questions.


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by dronestar, posted 09-17-2010 12:24 PM dronestar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by dronestar, posted 09-23-2010 12:12 PM ringo has responded

  
dronestar
Member (Idle past 75 days)
Posts: 1384
From: usa
Joined: 11-19-2008


Message 128 of 181 (582763)
09-23-2010 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by ringo
09-17-2010 2:52 PM


Re: Discourage religion, encourage critical thinking
ringo writes:

Stop shouting . . . and answer the damn questions"

Oh, the irony.

ringo writes:

* Critical thinking doesn't always produce "good" results.
* Religion doesn't always produce "bad" results.
* You can't "replace" religion with critical thinking.

You haven't addressed any of those points.

ringo writes:

* Critical thinking doesn't always produce "good" results.

I have repeatedly addressed this by linking the CRITERIA (including PRINCIPLES and DISPOSITIONS) for Critical Thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking), and then additionally addressed this by rejecting your failed examples below . . .

ringo writes:

What I've been saying from the start is that critical thinking isn't a magic solution to most problems because the people who cause the problems aren't using critical thinking in the first place. They'd have to be using critical thinking to take your advice and use critical thinking.

So, in essence you are saying, IF people CAN use critical thinking, THEN it would be a magical solution to most problems. We are nearly in agreement, but I think it more accurate to amend my earlier generic stance to: people who CAN use the FULL criteria for critical thinking (per Critical Thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking) will always produce "good" results.

ringo writes:

* Religion doesn't always produce "bad" results.

It seems you are incorrect by stating I haven't addressed this. I conceded "not always" way back in Message 67 and in Message 88, and went on to expand/clarify my position in subsequent messages.

ringo writes:

* You can't "replace" religion with critical thinking.

It seems you are incorrect by stating I haven't addressed this. I clarified that older and fully indoctrinated people like Buzz probably could not "replace" religious dogma with critical thinking way back in my Message 85. I also stated that critical thinking should be taught/ingrained as habit into young children in place of (displace) religious dogma, way back in Message 65.

Again, your following Nazi atrocity is not an example of Critical Thinking because it is disingenuous, and it does not use "fairness*" as a criteria. Also, Critical Thinking includes the identification of prejudice, bias, propaganda, self-deception, distortion, misinformation, etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking) that would additionally reject your following example:

ringo writes:

the Nazis were being "fair" to the German people, protecting them from Jews in the same way they would protect them from disease.

Similarly, your example of Hitler/sociopath's madness of lebensraum is not an example of Critical Thinking because it does not contain accuracy, discern hidden values, judge contextually, review credibility, rationality, sensibility, and FAIRNESS. Also, Critical Thinking includes identification of prejudice, bias, propaganda, self-deception, distortion, misinformation, etc. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking) that would additionally reject your following example:

wiki writes:

Lebensraum was one of the major political ideas of Adolf Hitler, and an important component of Nazi ideology. It served as the motivation for the expansionist policies of Nazi Germany, aiming to provide extra space for the growth of the German population, for a Greater Germany. In Hitler's book Mein Kampf, he detailed his belief that the German people needed Lebensraum ("living space", i.e. land and raw materials), and that it should be found in the East. It was the stated policy of the Nazis to KILL, deport, or ENSLAVE the Polish, Russian and other Slavic populations, whom they considered inferior, and to repopulate the land with Germanic peoples. The entire urban population was to be EXTERMINATED by STARVATION, thus creating an agricultural surplus to feed Germany and allowing their replacement by a German upper class.

The quest for Lebensraum was more than just an attempt to resolve potential demographic problems: it was a necessary means of defending the German race against stagnation and degeneration.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebensraum

ringo writes:

I already asked you what solution you would propose to Germany's problems that would have been "fair" to all parties.

Alas, I can not use critical thinking to produce a four-sided triangle or to obtain Hitler's goals.

(* Fairness" b. Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Fairness)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by ringo, posted 09-17-2010 2:52 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by ringo, posted 09-23-2010 3:51 PM dronestar has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19078
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 129 of 181 (582811)
09-23-2010 3:51 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by dronestar
09-23-2010 12:12 PM


Re: Discourage religion, encourage critical thinking
dronester writes:

I have repeatedly addressed this by linking the CRITERIA (including PRINCIPLES and DISPOSITIONS) for Critical Thinking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_thinking), and then additionally addressed this by rejecting your failed examples below . . .


Rejecting my examples doesn't do anything to show that they fail. Why don't you do that instead of repeating your bare link over and over again?

dronester writes:

Again, your following Nazi atrocity is not an example of Critical Thinking because it is disingenuous, and it does not use "fairness*" as a criteria. Also, Critical Thinking includes the identification of prejudice, bias, propaganda, self-deception, distortion, misinformation, etc.


If you don't like the lebensraum example, go back to the earlier Alsace-Lorraine example. Using critical thinking, what "should" have been done about Alsace-Lorraine? In all "fairness", who does it belong to?

dronester writes:

So, in essence you are saying, IF people CAN use critical thinking, THEN it would be a magical solution to most problems.


Not at all. I'm saying that even if people use critical thinking, it isn't necessarily a solution to problems.

dronester writes:

ringo writes:

I already asked you what solution you would propose to Germany's problems that would have been "fair" to all parties.


Alas, I can not use critical thinking to produce a four-sided triangle or to obtain Hitler's goals.

So you agree that there are problems that critical thinking can't solve. That's what I've been saying all along.

dronester writes:

ringo writes:

You can't "replace" religion with critical thinking.


I clarified that older and fully indoctrinated people like Buzz probably could not "replace" religious dogma with critical thinking way back in my Message 85.

So you agree that "replacing" religion with critical thinking is not a viable plan. That's what I've been saying all along.

dronester writes:

ringo writes:

Religion doesn't always produce "bad" results.


I conceded "not always" way back in Message 67 and in Message 88, and went on to expand/clarify my position in subsequent messages.

So you agree that critical thinking has little or no bearing on whether or not religion is good for us. That's what I've been saying all along.

Edited by ringo, : Added a question mark to a question.


"It appears that many of you turn to Hebrew to escape the English...." -- Joseppi

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by dronestar, posted 09-23-2010 12:12 PM dronestar has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15387
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 131 of 181 (713940)
12-18-2013 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by ringo
08-24-2010 6:40 PM


Am I evil for the anger I feel against evil?
ringo writes:

A lot of the evil that we see in the world is people pushing back against what they perceive as evil. Is it evil to kill people? Yes, often it is. Is it evil to kill people to prevent them from killing other people? That's when it starts getting gray.

This reminds me of how I felt yesterday when I was reading about another instance of piracy on the high seas.

Pirates Seize Captain, Engineer From Vessel Off Nigeria For some reason, these sorts of news stories enrage me! I think of ways that we should use drones to pulverize these bastards! Its odd though---what is it about them that makes me sooo angry?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by ringo, posted 08-24-2010 6:40 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Stile, posted 12-18-2013 10:37 AM Phat has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4041
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 132 of 181 (713943)
12-18-2013 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Phat
12-18-2013 10:00 AM


Re: Am I evil for the anger I feel against evil?
Phat writes:

Am I evil for the anger I feel against evil?

No one is evil for their feelings or thoughts.
You would only be evil if you actually did something (or intended to do something) that was evil.

If you can control your anger, and make decisions that are not evil even though you are angry... then you're not evil.
If you cannot control your anger, and your resulting decisions produce evil... then you're evil.

what is it about them that makes me sooo angry?

Probably the direct harm to innocent people for personal gain thing. That's pretty infuriating.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Phat, posted 12-18-2013 10:00 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by Phat, posted 12-30-2013 12:08 PM Stile has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15387
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 133 of 181 (714971)
12-30-2013 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 132 by Stile
12-18-2013 10:37 AM


Solutions for Somali Pirates
No one is evil for their feelings or thoughts.
You would only be evil if you actually did something (or intended to do something) that was evil.
Would it be evil for us---as a society---to send drones after the pirates?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Stile, posted 12-18-2013 10:37 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by jar, posted 12-30-2013 2:26 PM Phat has responded
 Message 142 by Stile, posted 01-02-2014 11:19 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 134 of 181 (714974)
12-30-2013 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by Phat
12-30-2013 12:08 PM


Re: Solutions for Somali Pirates
It would certainly be stupid to send drones after the pirates.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Phat, posted 12-30-2013 12:08 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by Phat, posted 12-30-2013 6:36 PM jar has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15387
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 135 of 181 (714980)
12-30-2013 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 134 by jar
12-30-2013 2:26 PM


Re: Solutions for Somali Pirates
Why? Drones have the technology to monitor large areas of ocean and are cheaper than naval vessels. Additionally, the Drones could be instructed not to blow them out of the water until they were confirmed. I see it as a possible solution to these rogues.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by jar, posted 12-30-2013 2:26 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 136 by jar, posted 12-30-2013 6:51 PM Phat has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.1


(1)
Message 136 of 181 (714981)
12-30-2013 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Phat
12-30-2013 6:36 PM


Re: Solutions for Somali Pirates
How do you confirm they are pirates?

Why not instead build infrastructure, improve health care, create jobs, sanction the oil companies until they work to promote jobs, health care, education and infrastructure on the west coast. That is an investment.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Phat, posted 12-30-2013 6:36 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by Phat, posted 12-31-2013 11:51 AM jar has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021