|
|
Post by gadreel on Sept 5, 2018 2:57:57 GMT
He might espouse ideas you dislike, but the guy is hardly mentally retarded, in fact he is extremely clever. So I just looked it up, and yeah he is extremely clever. Rain Man was extremely clever too. He could count a box of toothpicks faster than the average person! But you understand that the ability of someone to be “clever” in certain mental capacities does not absolve that someone of being mentally deficient in other areas, right? You called him mentally retarded, don't start making distinctions between when and where when your comment backfires on you.
regardless of how I feel about his opinion, it is pretty clear that Ben Shapiro is in the higher echelons of society when it comes to cognitive function and ability, look at his academic acheivements and his career, i'm sorry but if you have to assume that he is retarded because you simply disagree with his opinion, my friend that says far more about you than it does about him.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Sept 5, 2018 3:08:01 GMT
Rain Man was extremely clever too. He could count a box of toothpicks faster than the average person! But you understand that the ability of someone to be “clever” in certain mental capacities does not absolve that someone of being mentally deficient in other areas, right? You called him mentally retarded, don't start making distinctions between when and where when your comment backfires on you. It didn’t backfire on me, and I made no such distinctions. You ATTEMPTED to force a distinction by telling me you thought he was “clever”, as if that disproves his level of stupidity. People can be clever AND stupid at the same time; a fact that you don’t seem to object too. The fact that some stupid people are clever is irrelevant if they are still also stupid! Do you really want me to count a how many fallacious arguments you just made here? You literally just appealed to “your friend” as some kind of authority for establishing what is true. DonIneven need to go further than that? You also suggested that academic achievement and career is a reflection of wisdom. Here’s a news flash...it isn’t! Whether I agree with Ben Shapiro on anything or not isn’t relevant. Wisdom is reflected by whether or not you can make a valued judgment based on what you know to be true, not how much knowledge you have. And ANYONE who is clever (and privileged) can have a “career”. If George W Bush can ascend to the Presidency of the United States, then having the highest “cognitive function” is probably not a requirement for having a career! |
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Sept 5, 2018 3:19:12 GMT
Bryce, I seem to remember when we spoke in the past on IMDb, you were Unitarian-Universalist. Has that changed? Or can an atheist function under that umbrella? No, I wasn’t a “Unitarian-Universalist”, I was a Unitarian (which is different). Yes, that’s changed. No, they cannot function under the same umbrella. I am no longer a Christian; I am in fact an atheist. Explain then why they are generally linked? What is different about Unitarianism from Universalism? And if they include atheists in the fold, why as an atheist do you reject it? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Sept 5, 2018 4:04:04 GMT
No, I wasn’t a “Unitarian-Universalist”, I was a Unitarian (which is different). Yes, that’s changed. No, they cannot function under the same umbrella. I am no longer a Christian; I am in fact an atheist. Explain then why they are generally linked? What is different about Unitarianism from Universalism? And if they include atheists in the fold, why as an atheist do you reject it? I didn’t say I rejected it, I said that’s not what I was before. I was Unitarian Christian before, which is different from a Unitarian Universalist. I happen to be neither of those things today. |
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Sept 5, 2018 4:33:27 GMT
Explain then why they are generally linked? What is different about Unitarianism from Universalism? And if they include atheists in the fold, why as an atheist do you reject it? I didn’t say I rejected it, I said that’s not what I was before. I was Unitarian Christian before, which is different from a Unitarian Universalist. I happen to be neither of those things today. Again, what is the difference between the two if neither believe in the divinity of Jesus? |
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Sept 5, 2018 6:20:07 GMT
Reform, Conservative, Orthodox and Reconstructionist. Explain the differences and most salient points. I sense that Reformed is akin to ethical atheism. Thoughts? How is The Holocaust viewed? There are those who say it's one of the travails and refinements by fire discussed in the Torah. The Jews least likely to be atheist are Hasidim. I'd actually be shocked if there any Hasidic atheists. They are great people though. I worked for a company which sold products to Hasidic business in NYC. Nice people. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Sept 5, 2018 8:15:17 GMT
My question to Jews, practising or not, is why do they still mutilate baby boy penises without consent? It is after all a religious practice as an offering to God to ensure they get to heaven...  |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 5, 2018 10:36:14 GMT
Why....?  Why is he retarded? Forget that he’s a racist for a moment. But have you ever actually listened to the “logic” he uses when trying to rationalize a ludicrous position before? Look, I don’t expect you to be able to see lunacy with respect to appeals to religion to make your case. You are a religious person (and therefore also mentally retarded, as are all devoutly faithful in my judgment). But it’s one thing to engage in cognitive dissonance yourself, and quite different actually watching someone else do it. A religious person or even devoutly religious person cannot be called retarded unless referring to specific ones who are retarded. In 2013 I had made a claim that religious people are delusional. The member called Skyhawk contradicted my claims backed with evidence from psychologists and experts in the field that even the unproven religious beliefs such as Jesus walking on water or Krishna taking various forms are not delusional. Shared beliefs by many people does not constitute delusions according to experts of the field. While you can hold the opinion that religious people are retarded such belief is not acceptable to psychologists and experts who deal with study of mind. If you do not like religious people then you can claim that they are bad or they are intolerant or they are unethical but the word mentally retarded has a specific meaning and all religious people or even all devoutly religious people do not confirm to that meaning.
Even when it comes to average intelligence a religious person is likely to be only very slightly less intelligent than an average non-religious person.
Your claim that religious people are retarded is way off. Nothing more than your personal feeling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 5, 2018 11:26:22 GMT
The Jews least likely to be atheist are Hasidim. I'd actually be shocked if there any Hasidic atheists. They are great people though. I worked for a company which sold products to Hasidic business in NYC. Nice people. My favorite writer when I was in elementary school and still one of my favorites is Chaim Potok. He is most famous for The Chosen. It was made into a movie. I have never seen the movie, but I recommend the book and all the several books by Potok. Sadly, he passed in 2002. Several of his books are likely in your local library. Remember libraries? |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Sept 5, 2018 11:31:43 GMT
I didn’t say I rejected it, I said that’s not what I was before. I was Unitarian Christian before, which is different from a Unitarian Universalist. I happen to be neither of those things today. Again, what is the difference between the two if neither believe in the divinity of Jesus? The difference is that Unitarians are Christians, and Unitarian Universalists are Humanists. Unitarians believe in the teachings of Jesus Christ, and that he is the redeemer of sin. Unitarian Universalists believe in multiple religious interpretations, and multiple paths for redemption (that begins with us). So they really have nothing to do with each other. The only thing they have in common (besides the name Unitarian) is that both reject the doctrine of Trinity. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 5, 2018 11:40:45 GMT
My question to Jews, practising or not, is why do they still mutilate baby boy penises without consent? It is after all a religious practice as an offering to God to ensure they get to heaven... Circumcision is reversible. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Sept 5, 2018 11:46:54 GMT
Why is he retarded? Forget that he’s a racist for a moment. But have you ever actually listened to the “logic” he uses when trying to rationalize a ludicrous position before? Look, I don’t expect you to be able to see lunacy with respect to appeals to religion to make your case. You are a religious person (and therefore also mentally retarded, as are all devoutly faithful in my judgment). But it’s one thing to engage in cognitive dissonance yourself, and quite different actually watching someone else do it. A religious person or even devoutly religious person cannot be called retarded unless referring to specific ones who are retarded. They can be called anything (I literally just did). I think what you probably are trying to say is that you believe mental retardation should only be used to refer to the most current psychological mental diagnosis of the condition, rather than a lack of reasoning ability indicated by someone willing to accept the existence of supernatural forces on faith. Okay, well he didn’t make that argument to me. Therefore, you would have to provide that “evidence” if you want me to consider it. As far as I’m concerned, belief in god/gods meets the textbook definition of the term delusion. Delusion: an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of mental disorder.Okay, but I just explained to you above how I am actually using the term; not necessarily by the clinical definition. So without equivocation or star man arguments, let’s stick to the definition that I acknowledged that I’m using. Or if you prefer, We can substitute the word “retarded” for “delusional” (for the sake of clarity). My statement has nothing to do with liking them or disliking them. Nor am I making any such declarations of them being intolerant or unethical. I just think they are mentally deficient based on their inability to reason how to arrive a truth. But they still lack an ability to determine a reliable means to truth. That is a mental deficiency to me. Its a belief that is consistent with how I’m using the term (which I’ve just described to you in detail.) |
|
|
|
Post by kls on Sept 5, 2018 12:04:17 GMT
Well Judaism emphasizes Deed over Creed, hence one can still be Jewish without believing in God, much in the same way a person can be Buddhist, without believing in any of the Buddhist gods & goddesses. There is also the confusion between "Jewish" as a religion and "Jewish" as an ethnic group. When a Jewish man like Karl Marx is a bona fide materialist and atheist, does he cease to be a Jew? I think not. It's also an ethnicity evidenced in one's DNA. So what is be the difference between a Jewish atheist who aligns himself with the Reconstructionists and a Jewish atheist who disavows any connection to religion? I always saw Jewish as a religious descriptor. Wouldn't Hebrew be a more accurate label if we were talking about the ethnicity of the descendants of Abraham or first believers? |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 5, 2018 12:08:12 GMT
captainbryce Sure. You can call anyone anything but you wouldn't be right in doing so. I am trying to say that mental retardation only applies to what fits the definition of mental retardation. Being devoutly religious does not. No it does not. Perhaps you do not understand the meaning of idiosyncratic
ˌɪdɪə(ʊ)sɪŋˈkratɪk/ adjective relating to idiosyncrasy; peculiar or individual. idiosyncratic tendencies are unusual or strange, and not shared by other peopleReligious beliefs are shared beliefs and not idiosyncratic beliefs unless we are talking about particularly odd person who worships Chewbacca the wookiee. First even by your acknowledged definition you formed an incorrect opinion. Second if you use specific terms relating to questioning mental soundness of other individuals then we will resort to clinical definitions as is held by experts of a field. Yeah you can use the terms without understanding them but get ready to be called out for incorrectly using terms. Religious people do not confirm to metal retardation and do not hold delusional beliefs because of many reasons. One is that they their beliefs are shared by many others [faith]. More importantly they do not suffer from neurodevelopmental disorder characterized by significantly impaired intellectual and adaptive functioning.
Here is an article from a psychologist.
Why Religion Is Not Delusion
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 5, 2018 12:35:47 GMT
... Even when it comes to average intelligence a religious person is likely to be only very slightly less intelligent than an average non-religious person. You're doing that lumping thing again. You're using the data on "Christians" to make it appear atheists are smarter. Atheists are barely smarter than Christians if even that. They are not smarter than actually religious people. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 5, 2018 12:44:01 GMT
... Even when it comes to average intelligence a religious person is likely to be only very slightly less intelligent than an average non-religious person. You're doing that lumping thing again. You're using the data on "Christians" to make it appear atheists are smarter. Atheists are barely smarter than Christians if even that. They are not smarter than actually religious people. I do agree that an avearge Jew might probably be more intelligent than an average non-religious person. But there are things to consider like religiosity of the average Jew. That said if you noticed I already qualified my sentence with "even if" and "very slightly". I do agree with you that many of these researches comparing IQ level of religious vs non-religious do suffer from some form of bias or problems. However, recent studies do depict that non-religious people are slightly more intelligent than religious. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Sept 5, 2018 12:53:36 GMT
You're doing that lumping thing again. You're using the data on "Christians" to make it appear atheists are smarter. Atheists are barely smarter than Christians if even that. They are not smarter than actually religious people. I do agree that an avearge Jew might probably be more intelligent than an average non-religious person. But there are things to consider like religiosity of the average Jew. That said if you noticed I already qualified my sentence with "even if" and "very slightly". I do agree with you that many of these researches comparing IQ level of religious vs non-religious do suffer from some form of bias or problems. However, recent studies do depict that non-religious people are slightly more intelligent than religious. I'm trying to say this without losing my civility, but those "recent studies" are wrong. Or since people use their own definitions and no definitions are right or wrong, the recent studies are meaningless. They are measuring something other than education and income. You might not like education and income as definitions of intelligence and neither do I really. I've said so. However those are the definitions of intelligence that can be most widely recognized and accepted. |
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Sept 5, 2018 13:24:00 GMT
captainbryce Sure. You can call anyone anything but you wouldn't be right in doing so. I wouldn’t be wrong either. Especially when I explain what I meant by the term and how I was using it. I understand what you are trying to say. I basically stated what you were trying to say before you stated it, making this additional explanation unnecessary. My point is, this is no irrelevant given that we know now how I am using the term. No two people share the same religious beliefs. There are always different interpretations of religions (even within the same denomination and same congregation). The point that I’m making (if you finally decide to stop equivocating) is that religious people are CRAZY! Whatever term you prefer to use, it is insane to place faith in superstition and religious claims. What part about that do you not understand? First even by your acknowledged definition you formed an incorrect opinion. [/quote]There is no such thing as an “incorrect opinion”. Opinions can be based on reasons that you consider sound or unsound. You can agree with an opinion, or you can disagree with it. But opinions themselves are neither correct nor incorrect. No, YOU swill resort to using the terms as YOU understand them. But you’re ultimately missing the point by doing so. Because I already stated up front that I was not using the clinical, and I’ve already explained how I was using it. So “we” are actually not using the terms the same way. You are equivocating. None is that addresses what I actually said! This is boardering on a straw man argument at this point. Either address my actual point, or stop wasting my time. I’m not going to argue with you over a position that I do not hold. And I will repeat my position just to make it clear to you: Religions people lack a reliable means of evaluating truth when they use faith as their reason for believing something. And that is a mental deficiency to me. If you don’t want to address that point then there is no point in continuing. |
|
|
|
Post by Aj_June on Sept 5, 2018 13:32:11 GMT
[/div][/quote]
You can stop addressing my points if you please and that would not be surprising to me. You used terms you had no understanding about. Your original point was stated in clear terms. You originally said religious people are mentally retarded. I showed it clearly that experts and psychologists do not hold such a position and in fact such a position contradicts the authentic meaning of those terms. I clearly addressed what you actually said! You do not have the integrity to accept that you made incorrect usage of the terms that you used. Even after being shown that you used terms incorrectly you grabbed a definition from dictionary that ultimately made you look like even more foolish because it certainly proved you wrong even by your own usage standards. You throw around diagnostics terms such as delusional/mentally retarded in haphazard manner without understanding them and when shown that psychologists and experts do not agree with your views, you do not even concede you made incorrect use of those terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Sept 5, 2018 13:48:58 GMT
You can stop addressing my points if you please and that would not be surprising to me. I’m not interested in your points at all. YOU responded to MY point by ignoring my actual point and equivocating over terminology. The point I was making is that Ben Shapiro is crazy (and all theists who believe in something based on faith are similarly crazy). Pick whatever terminology that you prefer (retarded, delusional, insane, etc). But the term is unimportant to my point, especially when I explained what I meant. I am commenting on the reasonableness of believing something based on faith, while you seem more interested in arguing semantics. Now YOU can stop addressing MY point if you please, and it looks like you’ve already done that, so there’s really nothing else to say. |
|
