EPTWhy I think Im smart - Page 5
| Blogs > firehand101 |
|
Mothra
United States1448 Posts
| ||
|
Cyclone999
Canada331 Posts
Mark Twain once said: "Never argue with a stupid person. They will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience." I believe in the Bible, but I try and make sure I can see both sides, and look at it morally and logically. I don't find it hard to believe in the Bible but that's because I've been raised a Christian, and now I still like my choice. Even IF God doesn't exist, knowing that some superior deity is watching you, protecting you and helps you is sure more comforting than being on my own. Call me crazy  | ||
|
rezoacken
Canada2719 Posts
On April 17 2012 16:04 Jerubaal wrote: Here's the tl;dr: 'I'm an ideologue and anyone who doesn't agree with me is an idiot.' This is the complete opposite of intellectualism. Really quoted for truth and should have been /thread. I strongly do not believe in religion stories but still I respect people that do as long as they try not to convince other of their pov. For me respect is when you don't try to convince or disregard others in a subject that is 100% personal and with no known "truth", rejecting other views is contrary to being smart (works both ways). | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On April 18 2012 04:59 rezoacken wrote: Really quoted for truth and should have been /thread. I strongly do not believe in religion stories but still I respect people that do as long as they try not to convince other of their pov. For me respect is when you don't try to convince or disregard others in a subject that is 100% personal and with no known "truth", rejecting other views is contrary to being smart (works both ways). You respect people by never challenging their beliefs? What a strange world we live in when allowing those we know to dwell in unfounded superstition is considered to be a sign of respect. You cannot demand that someone believes as you do, but there is nothing respectful about never challenging a person's beliefs. If their beliefs are well reasoned they will hold and become stronger for it, if they are build without reason they deserve to fall. Is demanding reason from religion considered converting? Rejecting other views is not contrary to being smart. The essence of stupidity is the lack of reason that motivates the rejection or acceptance of a belief, regardless of its whether it is religious or pseudo-scientific. This demand that religion must be respected, and the tribute of this respect must be paid in silence on the matter, is but the last, though the most poisonous, attempt to strangle healthy dialogue. First you couldn't speak on pain of death. Now you can't speak on pain of breaking social conduct. What we must do is speak, and in that regard, religion and its cries for respect continue to be a thorn in the side of rational discourse. | ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
If you watch ANY video, you can really see the genuine interest in bringing you the FACTUAL news. Im not really sure how to say it, but if you watch, but more importantly if you BELIEVE everything you see in the generalised news, then i think the intelligence for that person is lower Read: if you believe the ~general~ news, you're stupid, but the special snowflake news I listen to is 100% factual! What drove you to post this on TL? I suppose if you like getting insulted, this was a perfectly logical plan -- though I'm not sure why someone would like that. And if you did honestly think you'd be praised for it, possibly because the userbase does lean progressive...well, in the words of the esteemed philosopher Antoine Dodson, "you are really dumb, for real." On another note, are you an Australian law student? You cannot demand that someone believes as you do, but there is nothing respectful about never challenging a person's beliefs. If their beliefs are well reasoned they will hold and become stronger for it, if they are build without reason they deserve to fall. as a religious person, I agree, but this is an argument for a different thread imo | ||
|
babylon
8765 Posts
It's best to treat the Bible like Homer's Odyssey imo; going too far in either direction (it's all true/it's all false) is unproductive and can taint discussion. The Bible is just one of the latest amongst many texts in a line of an extremely ancient Near Eastern literary tradition and builds upon motifs and ideas that have stuck around for several thousands of years. | ||
|
kubiks
France1328 Posts
On April 18 2012 03:35 Chill wrote: If you're so smart why were you banned from the strategy forum? ololol Because moderators are idiots, indeed the moderators of this forum BELIVES any build they see on a pro game, and disregard any other thing :D ...or just he said something stupid and got banned for that, but even people amongst the best get banned, look at my signature  | ||
|
PanN
United States2828 Posts
| ||
|
Coramoor
Canada455 Posts
| ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On April 18 2012 06:27 babylon wrote: Parts of the Bible are true and rooted in actual historical events that took place. I don't know what you mean by "believing one story," but some events have been corroborated by the study of other texts (e.g. historical annals, administrative tablets, etc.) and archaeological records. It's best to treat the Bible like Homer's Odyssey imo; going too far in either direction (it's all true/it's all false) is unproductive and can taint discussion. The Bible is just one of the latest amongst many texts in a line of an extremely ancient Near Eastern literary tradition and builds upon motifs and ideas that have stuck around for several thousands of years. With major events like Exodus being entirely fabricated: thus by extension destroying Judaism, and the two faiths that were copied from Judaism: Christianity and Islam. It has some historical value, but so do census reports, but I doubt you suggest we reduce the Bible's importance to the equivalence of a random well documented piece of historical evidence. But things like Exodus are complete fabrications. Then we have other peculiarities, like Jesus' being born in a stable near Bethlahem because of a census practice which orders people to return to their ancestral home (never in Roman history has this been practice). Finally, should we use the Bible as a foundation for morality? No, we should not, even if some of its lessons are good. If the lessons are good, then we can follow them without divine mandate. People need to learn that morality does not come from decree, it comes from compassion for your fellow man and a foundation of reason which aims to make morality based on the well being of people. Even using the Bible as a moral handbook is sending the wrong message to children. Morality does not, and never should, be derived from a mandate from heaven. Meditations by Marcus Aurelius has far better lessons on morality. He even adresses the point, what should we do if the gods don't exist? What does that mean for morality? So, even as a guidebook, the Bible should serve little purpose in our society. It teaches the wrong way to learn about morality. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
| ||
|
firehand101
Australia3152 Posts
On April 17 2012 22:47 adwodon wrote: One of my favourite effects. You're* How do you know were not the ones who don't get it? lol I dont have this effect! Haha I am not really trying to say im smart, but im saying others are less intelligent! geez | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On April 18 2012 07:19 sam!zdat wrote: zalz, have you read confucius? I haven't, but I recon I should at least get around to it once. | ||
|
sam!zdat
United States5559 Posts
On April 18 2012 07:40 zalz wrote: I haven't, but I recon I should at least get around to it once. I think he has very sophisticated ethical philosophy, based on what you have said here I think you might like it. cheers. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
Then we have other peculiarities, like Jesus' being born in a stable near Bethlahem because of a census practice which orders people to return to their ancestral home (never in Roman history has this been practice). Christ was born in a stable near Bethlehem because they were on the run, according to the gospel narratives. Nothing to do with some nonexistent story of some nonexistent practice. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
On April 18 2012 07:47 koreasilver wrote: Christ was born in a stable near Bethlehem because they were on the run, according to the gospel narratives. Nothing to do with some nonexistent story of some nonexistent practice. I wonder Luke 2:1-20 1 In those days Caesar Augustus issued a decree that a census should be taken of the entire Roman world. 2 (This was the first census that took place while[a] Quirinius was governor of Syria.) 3 And everyone went to their own town to register. 4 So Joseph also went up from the town of Nazareth in Galilee to Judea, to Bethlehem the town of David, because he belonged to the house and line of David. 5 He went there to register with Mary, who was pledged to be married to him and was expecting a child. 6 While they were there, the time came for the baby to be born, 7 and she gave birth to her firstborn, a son. She wrapped him in cloths and placed him in a manger, because there was no guest room available for them. 8 And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night. 9 An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified. 10 But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. 11 Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. 12 This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” 13 Suddenly a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, 14 “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favor rests.” 15 When the angels had left them and gone into heaven, the shepherds said to one another, “Let’s go to Bethlehem and see this thing that has happened, which the Lord has told us about.” 16 So they hurried off and found Mary and Joseph, and the baby, who was lying in the manger. 17 When they had seen him, they spread the word concerning what had been told them about this child, 18 and all who heard it were amazed at what the shepherds said to them. 19 But Mary treasured up all these things and pondered them in her heart. 20 The shepherds returned, glorifying and praising God for all the things they had heard and seen, which were just as they had been told. But you know, maybe census is a metaphor for ninja assasins. | ||
|
babylon
8765 Posts
On April 18 2012 07:08 zalz wrote: With major events like Exodus being entirely fabricated: thus by extension destroying Judaism, and the two faiths that were copied from Judaism: Christianity and Islam. It has some historical value, but so do census reports, but I doubt you suggest we reduce the Bible's importance to the equivalence of a random well documented piece of historical evidence. But things like Exodus are complete fabrications. Then we have other peculiarities, like Jesus' being born in a stable near Bethlahem because of a census practice which orders people to return to their ancestral home (never in Roman history has this been practice). Census reports taken together with other administrative docs are far more useful in reconstructing the past than the Bible will probably ever be, but the Bible and other ancient works of literature should never be thrown away lightly. If you're acquainted with ANE studies, you'd know that a.) though it's led scholars and still leads them on many a wild good chase, the Bible has already made valuable contributions to the field, and b.) scholars need to work with what materials they have. Ever heard of the story about the drunk under the lamppost? That's the story of ANE studies. You read the Bible with a critical eye but with an open mind, as you do all potential historical sources and ancient literature. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
So i think these two things are religion and news. Well, i will explain the religion first; I just think the very thought that someone could believe JUST ONE story from the bible is absolutely mind boggling. Just mind boggling. I can accept people who use religion as a guide line to live their lives, and if that is how they get their morales then so be it. But if someone actually literally believes some of the stories in the bible, then i know for a fact they cant think for themselves at all, and probably refuse to look into it further and research it. The Bible is pretty accurate when it comes to the history of the Jewish people up to the New Testament, and a pretty accurate account of early Christian Church history... so you're not as smart as you think you are if you think that belief in JUST ONE story is mind boggling, sorry. the young turks is a news show. If you watch ANY video, you can really see the genuine interest in bringing you the FACTUAL news. Im not really sure how to say it, but if you watch, but more importantly if you BELIEVE everything you see in the generalised news, then i think the intelligence for that person is lower The Young Turks is a place for Cenk Uygur and people who think like him to tell each other how right they are and how wrong and bad the other side is, like all opinion shows. It's just as simplistic and bad as Hannity (the show, although its host is equally bad). But things like Exodus are complete fabrications. Well no Exodus isn't a complete fabrication, but someone who hasn't studied Bible history wouldn't know that. | ||
|
zalz
Netherlands3704 Posts
Well no Exodus isn't a complete fabrication, but someone who hasn't studied Bible history wouldn't know that. Exodus is completely and utterly false from start to end. There is not a single shred of evidence to suggest that the jews were ever enslaved by the Egyptians, and there certainly isn't any evidence of a society surviving in the desert for 40 years. You can study Bible history all you want, but that won't make signs of a human society appear in the sands of the Sinai desert. There is no historical evidence to suggest that the exodus ever took place. In fact, the very absence of historical evidence suggests that it never took place. You can't wander around the desert for 40 years and not leave a trace, it isn't possible. The only way to defend the complete lack of evidence is by subscribing to the notion of a trickster god that places dinosaur bones and removes any traces of Jews living in the Sinai, just to 'test' peoples faith. Or get into that ridiuclous number mumbo jumbo where certain numbers are just numbers but other numbers are metaphors and other words are metaphors for numbers, all the way till they eventually stumble across some combination of words and numbers that does make their view work. So no, Exodus never happened, and by extension that undermines all of the Abrahamic faiths. | ||
|
Chargelot
2275 Posts
(Yes, I know it says he's from Aus) So no, Exodus never happened, and by extension that undermines all of the Abrahamic faiths. Fantastic news! I'll alert the media and the Nobel organization. I will not endeavor to prove or disprove anything mentioned in the Bible; I couldn't care less if the whole thing was false or true. However, to the best of my knowledge, the Sinai deserts have not been excavated wholly and completely. 60,000km^(2) is a lot of land to dig up so that one could find evidence of life from ~4000-5000+ years ago. | ||
| ||
