|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 19, 2020 14:16:25 GMT
I said the reply was 'desperate' (I actually deleted it just after since I deemed it too harsh) I should instead have put 'besides the point' for, whether the statement of the Constitution spoke the truth about the populace or not, or whether or not it was possible to check fact by asking them, it does not affect the type of statement made. One can make false absolute statements. This is another absolute statement. It is unwise to speak in personal absolutes all the time, especially those incapable of objective substantiation, as en masse they seem more arrogant than accurate. It's never an absolute statement unless the stater says, "absolutely, without exception, 100 percent of the time". When one notes that the above is an absolute statement - made precisely without those words! But, whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 19, 2020 20:40:11 GMT
"In my experience, the people who criticize me believing, don't understand religion. Instead of just asking questions with an open mind, they assume, presume, accuse and make asses of themselves." This is an absolute statement. If something is absolute, it is 100% one way or another; it is not relative or comparative. It doesn't leave room for variation - just as here. Glad to help. I'll kinda defend movieliker here. He did qualify it with "in my experience." I mentioned early on that it could be that he just hasn't encountered any atheists who were knowledgeable about religion. Of course, the fact that he then proceeded to state one false claim about Christianity that thor corrected him on, and another about Jesus and the Virgin being a parable that I corrected him on, probably indicates that he actually doesn't understand religion himself and is simply using "people who criticize me don't understand religion" to mean "if someone disagrees with me they must not understand religion." It's Arlon's Dunning-Kruger effect in another form. No. I probably encounter non believers who are knowledgeable about religion. But they don't question, complain, criticize or attack me for being a believer. My label only applies to those who attack me for being a believer. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 19, 2020 21:07:14 GMT
They are your personal subjective reasons to use as a buffer only about those that don’t side with you. How can you possibly claim someone is guilty and ignorant about your belief, when you aren’t offering anything to make sense about what they are supposed to be ignorant and guilty of. Of course. It's personal and subjective. Why would you think anything else? When you claim others are guilty and ignorant regarding your personal belief, which is subjective, it takes it out of the the personal range though I would say. Why are they guilty for not having religion and what makes them ignorant about religion?
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 19, 2020 21:09:40 GMT
Of course. It's personal and subjective. Why would you think anything else? When you claim others are guilty and ignorant regarding your personal belief, which is subjective, it takes it out of the the personal range though I would say. Why are they guilty for not having religion and what makes them ignorant about religion? I never said, "they are guilty for not having religion". What I did say was, "they feel guilty for not having religion ". |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on May 19, 2020 21:14:58 GMT
When you claim others are guilty and ignorant regarding your personal belief, which is subjective, it takes it out of the the personal range though I would say. Why are they guilty for not having religion and what makes them ignorant about religion? I never said, "they are guilty for not having religion". What I did say was, "they feel guilty for not having religion ".Saying they feel guilty, is exactly the same as saying they are guilty. How can you possibly gauge this and WHAT is it that makes them feel guilty for not having religion?
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 19, 2020 21:16:07 GMT
I'll kinda defend movieliker here. He did qualify it with "in my experience." I mentioned early on that it could be that he just hasn't encountered any atheists who were knowledgeable about religion. Of course, the fact that he then proceeded to state one false claim about Christianity that thor corrected him on, and another about Jesus and the Virgin being a parable that I corrected him on, probably indicates that he actually doesn't understand religion himself and is simply using "people who criticize me don't understand religion" to mean "if someone disagrees with me they must not understand religion." It's Arlon's Dunning-Kruger effect in another form. No. I probably encounter non believers who are knowledgeable about religion. But they don't question, complain, criticize or attack me for being a believer. My label [unknowledgeable] only applies to those who attack me for being a believer. Here we are told that only unknowledgeable people criticise Movleliker because we must accept the truth that knowledgeable people never do. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 19, 2020 21:21:00 GMT
I never said, "they are guilty for not having religion". What I did say was, "they feel guilty for not having religion ".Saying they feel guilty, is exactly the same as saying they are guilty. How can you possibly gauge this and WHAT is it that makes them feel guilty for not having religion? No it's not. You don't understand English. Being guilty and feeling guilty are two different things. Being guilty means you did something wrong. Feeling guilty means you feel like you did something wrong, but you may not have. Projection is why people who feel guilty attack me. They are projecting their own negative feelings on me. |
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on May 19, 2020 22:28:34 GMT
I am 100% sure that there is not one single atheist out there that feels guilty for not having religion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 19, 2020 23:02:14 GMT
I'll kinda defend movieliker here. He did qualify it with "in my experience." I mentioned early on that it could be that he just hasn't encountered any atheists who were knowledgeable about religion. Of course, the fact that he then proceeded to state one false claim about Christianity that thor corrected him on, and another about Jesus and the Virgin being a parable that I corrected him on, probably indicates that he actually doesn't understand religion himself and is simply using "people who criticize me don't understand religion" to mean "if someone disagrees with me they must not understand religion." It's Arlon's Dunning-Kruger effect in another form. No. I probably encounter non believers who are knowledgeable about religion. But they don't question, complain, criticize or attack me for being a believer. My label only applies to those who attack me for being a believer. Well that's odd. What is it about those knowledgeable non-believers that makes them not attack you, and what it is about those ignorant non-believers that do? A cynic might suggest that the minute someone "attacks you" you simply categorize them as an ignorant non-believer.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 19, 2020 23:06:03 GMT
No. I probably encounter non believers who are knowledgeable about religion. But they don't question, complain, criticize or attack me for being a believer. My label only applies to those who attack me for being a believer. Well that's odd. What is it about those knowledgeable non-believers that makes them not attack you, and what it is about those ignorant non-believers that do? A cynic might suggest that the minute someone "attacks you" you simply categorize them as an ignorant non-believer. No. Intelligent believers and non believers know there is no proof one way or another. And they respect my decision to believe. Ignorant believers and non-believers think they know that which is unknowable. And proceed to tell anybody who doesn't agree with them that they are stupid. |
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 19, 2020 23:12:41 GMT
I'll kinda defend movieliker here. He did qualify it with "in my experience." I mentioned early on that it could be that he just hasn't encountered any atheists who were knowledgeable about religion. Well maybe; it is certainly an absolute statement of his experience, as well as similar overwheening comment on others. Just as would be, for instance, such a statement as "whenever I go on holiday it has been a terrible vacation, those who criticise that view don't know holidays and are stupid". The sense in which he qualifies things through his experience doesn't feel conditional, it more gives an impression of being used in justifying a sweeping view. That is he doesn't take the subjective nature of experience sensibly, as necessarily being limited, but instead as a implied confirmation of an overall reality, including an unflattering judgement on others expressed in absolute terms. With this, no argument from the "asses" is acceptable, it seems. Your point is similar to that which induced his spate of rudeness instead of a straight answer way back at the start, when I asked: "So some who criticise you, in your experience, do really know religion?" ("but some people on that holiday might have enjoyed it?"). A response not surprising, since Movieliker would have to accept this reasonable qualification if his claim is not to be taken as absolute, as he insists - one which I would be happy to accept. His recent " All intelligent believers have a personal relationship with God.", one noted, was not even qualified by his unassailable experience, which just adds to the sense of someone expecting his judgements to be taken as definitive. But this is all water under the bridge. His most recent absolute statement, and the continuing impression it gives, I have dealt with in my last posting. I don't disagree with you, I was merely saying that based on that original post his position wasn't clearly so absolute. As I suggested in my last post, it seems that movieliker's entire categorization of intelligent VS ignorant non-believers is based on whether he feels attacked by them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 19, 2020 23:14:26 GMT
Well that's odd. What is it about those knowledgeable non-believers that makes them not attack you, and what it is about those ignorant non-believers that do? A cynic might suggest that the minute someone "attacks you" you simply categorize them as an ignorant non-believer. No. Intelligent believers and non believers know there is no proof one way or another. And they respect my decision to believe. Ignorant believers and non-believers think they know that which is unknowable. And proceed to tell anybody who doesn't agree with them that they are stupid. There's "no proof" one way or the other for Russell's Teapot or Sagan's Garage Dragon. Just because there's no proof either way doesn't make something rational to believe. So the "knowledgeable non-believers" are actually quite ignorant if they would suggest otherwise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 19, 2020 23:16:33 GMT
And that's when the transubstantiation fight started. You ever seen Bunuel's The Milky Way? It's basically a surreal trek through the history of theological arguments, and there's a really funny scene where some religious leaders get into a tiff about the transubstantiation thing. It's pretty funny.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on May 19, 2020 23:18:12 GMT
No. Intelligent believers and non believers know there is no proof one way or another. And they respect my decision to believe. Ignorant believers and non-believers think they know that which is unknowable. And proceed to tell anybody who doesn't agree with them that they are stupid. There's "no proof" one way or the other for Russell's Teapot or Sagan's Garage Dragon. Just because there's no proof either way doesn't make something rational to believe. So the "knowledgeable non-believers" are actually quite ignorant if they would suggest otherwise. I disagree. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 20, 2020 0:15:24 GMT
Setting aside what he does believe, why don't you accept that what you think he believes is your mistake when you are told?More nonsense. I don't need to think about his belief, other than what he means by it, especially since he has expounded on it.
His belief is his, but if he cares enough to express it, he has to own his own pov when challenged about it. He needs to accept that he can't assume that others are guilty and ignorant over not having religion, (his words), unless he can back it up with something valid and reasonable about what he is trying to say, otherwise he is best perhaps not saying anything. doesn't want me to tell him what he means. I only tell him what I guess he means. It is difficult to know. See the difference? I suspect you could retry things more often as well.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 20, 2020 0:17:19 GMT
You're also proud to admit you decide who experts are based on who agrees with you. I decide who experts are based on their reputation within the scientific community, so, eg, Nobel Prize winners, or members of the National Academy of Scientists or Royal Society of London, or even just people with PhD's on general matters within their field. You'd have us doubting all of these people when they disagree with you. It's also no wonder why you'd have us questioning experts, because you want us to believe you're one. What I want you to believe is that you can be one, just not the way you're trying, or not trying. Oh sure, it's a lot easier if you have parents who are very successful. It is also very difficult if your parents are full of wrong notions. Generally speaking though the American dream is true, you can reach the top from the bottom. Maybe you should believe it happened just as I said. The people who don't really understand religion or science started a sort of a "war" between them that left you "fighting" in it, depriving you of the higher truth in art and religion. I have no desire to be an expert on anything other than my profession (or, at least, enough of an expert to be successful) and my greatest passions, which happen to be the arts. For everything else I'm content being a dilettante who merely learns from experts and who has the humility not to question them in my lack of expertise. IE, I strive not to be a Dunning-Kruger victim like yourself. FYI, my parents had, and continue to have, many wrong ideas. Their wrong ideas, in many respects, have spurred me to know what I do happen to know.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 20, 2020 0:17:55 GMT
There's "no proof" one way or the other for Russell's Teapot or Sagan's Garage Dragon. Just because there's no proof either way doesn't make something rational to believe. So the "knowledgeable non-believers" are actually quite ignorant if they would suggest otherwise. I disagree. So it's rational to believe there's an invisible dragon in your garage and that there's a teapot orbiting the sun? OK.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on May 20, 2020 0:19:43 GMT
Your teaching was very atypical then. The problem with reading it all as parable is manifold, including the fact that Jesus's own parables would then be parables within parables. Plus, parables tend not to be historic in nature, and there's plenty of actual history mentioned in The Gospels. There are theories out there that The Gospels are historic in the same way, say, Spider-Man is historic, meaning that it mentions real places and people but the narratives themselves are fictional; but even then that wouldn't make all the stories parables. Parables tend to be short, allegorical and aphoristic, and most of the Gospels are none of those things. A person has to be very severely mentally deficient not to see the art in the Bible. Much of it is people trying to survive while their neighbors are totally without morality. I've known quite young people who can understand it. Your failure is odd. What drives you to make such obvious mistakes? I'm not saying there's no art in The Bible. WTF are you talking about? In fact, I've said many times on here before that we should treat The Bible as literature, as art; but part of that requires understanding how to categorize it under various genres, of which it includes many. Most around here don't have the first clue about literary categories because they've never studied literature.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 20, 2020 0:35:20 GMT
What I want you to believe is that you can be one, just not the way you're trying, or not trying. Oh sure, it's a lot easier if you have parents who are very successful. It is also very difficult if your parents are full of wrong notions. Generally speaking though the American dream is true, you can reach the top from the bottom. Maybe you should believe it happened just as I said. The people who don't really understand religion or science started a sort of a "war" between them that left you "fighting" in it, depriving you of the higher truth in art and religion. I have no desire to be an expert on anything other than my profession (or, at least, enough of an expert to be successful) and my greatest passions, which happen to be the arts. For everything else I'm content being a dilettante who merely learns from experts and who has the humility not to question them in my lack of expertise. IE, I strive not to be a Dunning-Kruger victim like yourself. FYI, my parents had, and continue to have, many wrong ideas. Their wrong ideas, in many respects, have spurred me to know what I do happen to know. One thing I cannot recommend is that you try to be a comedian.
|
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on May 20, 2020 0:43:43 GMT
A person has to be very severely mentally deficient not to see the art in the Bible. Much of it is people trying to survive while their neighbors are totally without morality. I've known quite young people who can understand it. Your failure is odd. What drives you to make such obvious mistakes? I'm not saying there's no art in The Bible. WTF are you talking about? In fact, I've said many times on here before that we should treat The Bible as literature, as art; but part of that requires understanding how to categorize it under various genres, of which it includes many. Most around here don't have the first clue about literary categories because they've never studied literature. You are correct that there are different types of indirect speech. As a professor of mine once said there are "lumpers" and "splitters" (that was anthropology and referred to the categorization of "cultures.") As with prehistoric "cultures" (before written history) it can be difficult to put all examples of indirect speech neatly into categories. Other scholars might do things differently.
|
|
