republicans oppose teaching of “critical thinking skills”

[Ricter]

Quote from RCG Trader:

I could be confused. Please state, in concrete, definitive terms, what your philosophical point is.

The point is, discussable "things" exist because we define what they are, which necessarily also indicates what they are not. We give them a "boundary", and so divide.

 

[Yannis]

Quote from Free Thinker:

wouldnt it be wise to document some evidence that a god exists before we think about the relationship this imaginary being has with us?

"There is no reason to examine the question of whether there's a god or not until there's a reason to postulate one." - dloubet

Evidence, in a pseudo-scientist way of thinking, is a minor phenomenon when compared to the very source of being which is one of God's main attributes as we understand the situation with our limited faculties.

When a few people are in a room, and can only interact with whatever is in there, they cannot understand anything outside that room, where, presumably, the creator of the room and all its contents resides.

Not with their pseudo-rational mind, that is.

 

[Free Thinker]

Quote from Yannis:

Evidence, in a pseudo-scientist way of thinking, is a minor phenomenon when compared to the very source of being which is one of God's main attributes as we understand the situation with our limited faculties.

When a few people are in a room, and can only interact with whatever is in there, they cannot understand anything outside that room, where, presumably, the creator of the room and all its contents resides.

Not with their pseudo-rational mind, that is.

so we cant precieve of this thing. we cant see it. we cant understand it. it does not interact with us but we spend our lives worshiping it? why?

"the invisible and the non existant are very much alike".

 

[Ricter]

Quote from Free Thinker:

so we cant precieve of this thing. we cant see it. we cant understand it. it does not interact with us but we spend our lives worshiping it? why?

It's an immortality project, a path for heroism (and courage). Ever read any Ernest Becker?

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Ricter:

The point is, discussable "things" exist because we define what they are, which necessarily also indicates what they are not. We give them a "boundary", and so divide.

So, to further this argument, please define for me, your definition of all knowing, and all powerful.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Yannis:

God doesn't hate anything.

Really?

There are six things the Lord hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
17haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19a false witness who pours out lies
and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

 

[Ricter]

Quote from RCG Trader:

So, to further this argument, please define for me, your definition of all knowing, and all powerful.

Same problem, a contradiction, with the statement that there can be good without bad. That's saying "all good". All I'm saying is that if there's good, there's bad, just as if there's an up, there's a down.

 

[Yannis]

Quote from Free Thinker:

so we cant precieve of this thing. we cant see it. we cant understand it. it does not interact with us but we spend our lives worshiping it? why?

"the invisible and the non existant are very much alike".

Sure we can, we do it all the time, but not through our limited thinking. We can't prove that our dreams exist, and yet we know they are there, we experience them all the time. Same with our love towards others, fears, enjoyment of good music, etc etc.

Most of what we experience cannot be proven that they exist if we take a limited "objective" perspective that pseudo-scientists claim should be driving us. Objective proof is just impossible, how can you get everyone on this planet to agree on anything?

What we have is inter-subjective guidance: many of us experience something and we decide to let it influence us, call it "real".

We interact with God through intuition that's faith-powered, ie, an initial acceptance that this line of experience is valid based on similar experiences that others have had and comes to us as inter-subjective evidence. For example, others have told you that dreams are real, you open your mind to the possibility and you remember them next morning. Crude example, but in the ballpark.

Once that interaction takes place even once, no more "objective" proof is needed, our faith takes hold and we can see for ourselves.

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from Ricter:

Same problem, a contradiction, with the statement that there can be good without bad. That's saying "all good". All I'm saying is that if there's good, there's bad, just as if there's an up, there's a down.

The bible states that God is all knowing, and all powerful. Do you refute this?

 

[RCG Trader]

Quote from RCG Trader:

Really?

There are six things the Lord hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
17haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19a false witness who pours out lies
and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.

Yannis, apparently you missed this, so I will again call it to your attention.