EPTIntelligence lies in the individual, not their school of thought.
tasteless vs jahovas wittness - Page 10
| Blogs > MyLostTemple |
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
Intelligence lies in the individual, not their school of thought. | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On February 01 2009 16:54 LTT wrote: lol, I wasn't sleep typing, I just went to bed a few minutes later. My family has been agnostic as far back as I can remember, so I've never had a particular religion. I "found" god on my own, and rejected him on my own as well. I don't have a religion. Since you are sleep typing, would you mind sharing what exactly it is that convinces you to become a theist again? Is it always to the same religion? Have you dabbled with Wotan and Thor at all or is it always back to the Judeo-Christian deities? Edit: I guess I believe in universalism. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
| ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On February 02 2009 03:00 koreasilver wrote: Nope. I was just arguing against aggressive negative views on faiths.Wat. I thought you were a Christian all throughout this thread. | ||
|
rei
United States3593 Posts
On February 02 2009 02:51 koreasilver wrote: The general mass of any school of thought are fools, unfortunately. Intelligence lies in the individual, not their school of thought. true intelligence of each individual is different, it is the teacher's job to help all the students to think critically, and realize their intelligence instead of just feed on the text books and take them as granted. By teaching students how to think critically, and develop their metacognitive abilities, a teacher is teaching students how to learn instead of "learn this or you fail", hence, the students can apply those skills in whatever subject they are interest in. It is like that saying, you feed them a fish, they are good for a day, but you teach them how to fish, they are set for live. I belief teaching how to learn is so much more important than feeding students with merely content knowledge. Because if they choose to, they can learn anything they like later on in their life without any teacher assistance. Not all students are motivated to learn whatever content a teacher is trying to teach, but once the student have self-motivation in learning whatever they want to learn in the future, they can rely on their metacognitive abilities. There are many many teachers who teach in this facilitating manner. and there are many who thinks their job is to teach whatever subject the course requires, assuming the students already acquired critical thinking skillz.(usually college level) | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
Learning how to learn and think on your own is most definitely the best thing you can learn, but education systems don't truly engage in teaching this sort of thing most of the time. It is only a handful of individuals out of the swarming mass that truly gain significant insight and understanding and by no means are atheists the only ones that become these few. Your argument of using these post-secondary institutions as a model is flawed because textbooks are often critically biased and the professors are even more so. The slight biases may have an effect upon a student's beliefs. One is able to pass through without much critical thinking at all. For a great deal of assignments one only really needs to use the proper form and use simple reasoning to get a decent grade. For the knowledge you must know, you only really need to memorize, not truly understand. It is fully possible to get your bachelors degree by being dedicated and punctual; you don't really have to truly understand the intricacies of the material. Education systems don't really gauge a students intelligence but more of how dedicated they are, although the very top of the chain harbor those that are both intelligent and dedicated. | ||
|
rei
United States3593 Posts
On February 02 2009 03:31 koreasilver wrote: Your argument of using these post-secondary institutions as a model is flawed because textbooks are often critically biased and the professors are even more so. actually Dawkins' argument uses ppl who have phd in various scientific fields, and he was outrage due to the fact that there are 2% of them belief in creationism. And I refuse to belief you can get by without critical thinking and metacognition and achieve phds in any field of sciences. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
Also, what does one person's opinion have to do with the entirety of mankind? | ||
|
rei
United States3593 Posts
my previous post, that I consider atheist = people who came to the conclusion of god does not exist base on empirical evidence. Therefore, in this definition there are people who consider themselves to be religious yet disbeliever of creationism. and by this definition, in the same time excludes all those who think they are atheist just because it is popular, they just tag along with whomever they consider to be cool and happened to be atheist. What does one person's opinion have to do with the entirety of mankind? It depend on how many people share that same opinion, and how many people they can infect with his/her believes. Hilter is an example. Einstien is also another example. | ||
|
koreasilver
9109 Posts
You are also narrowing the definition of "atheist" to a standard that you believe should be the definition of "atheist" and so you are distorting the argument. A religious individual may simply counter that by saying that "I'll exclude all those except 'true believers' for my standard of 'religious'". Using Dawkin's ideals as an argument is flawed as one person's view does not constitute as the absolute truth nor do they reflect the sentimentality of all of his colleagues. Your arguments are fallacious. | ||
|
Draconizard
628 Posts
| ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1648 Posts
On February 02 2009 03:31 koreasilver wrote: The thing is, most education systems are based around on just feeding text and forcing memorization rather than understanding. You don't necessarily need to be intelligent to do well in school; you only need to understand and work with the system. Learning how to learn and think on your own is most definitely the best thing you can learn, but education systems don't truly engage in teaching this sort of thing most of the time. It is only a handful of individuals out of the swarming mass that truly gain significant insight and understanding and by no means are atheists the only ones that become these few. Your argument of using these post-secondary institutions as a model is flawed because textbooks are often critically biased and the professors are even more so. The slight biases may have an effect upon a student's beliefs. One is able to pass through without much critical thinking at all. For a great deal of assignments one only really needs to use the proper form and use simple reasoning to get a decent grade. For the knowledge you must know, you only really need to memorize, not truly understand. It is fully possible to get your bachelors degree by being dedicated and punctual; you don't really have to truly understand the intricacies of the material. Education systems don't really gauge a students intelligence but more of how dedicated they are, although the very top of the chain harbor those that are both intelligent and dedicated. This exact argument is applied again and again in various contexts, it is arrogant, condecending and leads nowhere. The only thing I learned reading your post is that you believe most people are stupid and incapable of critical thinking. " It is only a handful of individuals out of the swarming mass that truly gain significant insight and understanding" If you by "significant understanding" simply mean "more understanding than most people" then your statement is both trivial and circular. That leads me to assume that you actually believe most people to be "less than intelligent" or "stupid". This is ignorant. It is easy to dismiss out of hand that which we do not understand and few things are so difficult to grasp as another person's mind. Your aversion for the modern education system is interesting. How exactly is anyone supposed to "understand" something which they don't know in the first place? Not to mention that no bridges would ever be built if each new engineer had to create their own system of mathematics from ground up, had to derive the classical models of motion for themselves and so on. Instead they are taught an already existing framework within which to operate and to expand upon if they are able to. That is efficiency. That is also something that separates us from cats. Finally: Originally people used faith as a basis to understand the world; An electrostatic discharge across the sky "Thor is taking a ride". A spontaneous mutation within several crucial DNA fragments causes cancer and death "He angered Apollo with his words" and so on. In general our models are more statisfying now, at the very least they are more useful. An atheist then would be someone that choses an all throughout rational world view. | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
+ On February 02 2009 04:37 koreasilver wrote: Belief in creationism is not required to believe in a god, and so I have no idea why you think that not believing in creationism automatically makes you an atheist. Not believing in creationism does not make you not believe in a god. You are also narrowing the definition of "atheist" to a standard that you believe should be the definition of "atheist" and so you are distorting the argument. A religious individual may simply counter that by saying that "I'll exclude all those except 'true believers' for my standard of 'religious'". Using Dawkin's ideals as an argument is flawed as one person's view does not constitute as the absolute truth nor do they reflect the sentimentality of all of his colleagues. Your arguments are fallacious. rei, as a secular humanist and someone who has read from Dawkins to Hitchens to Harris to Russell, I think your arguments suck. | ||
|
rei
United States3593 Posts
On February 02 2009 04:37 koreasilver wrote: Belief in creationism is not required to believe in a god, and so I have no idea why you think that not believing in creationism automatically makes you an atheist. Not believing in creationism does not make you not believe in a god. You are also narrowing the definition of "atheist" to a standard that you believe should be the definition of "atheist" and so you are distorting the argument. A religious individual may simply counter that by saying that "I'll exclude all those except 'true believers' for my standard of 'religious'". Using Dawkin's ideals as an argument is flawed as one person's view does not constitute as the absolute truth nor do they reflect the sentimentality of all of his colleagues. Your arguments are fallacious. I need you to try to make a distinction between my argument and my belief. I make my argument base on my belief. and the argument is supported by evidence. My belief leads me to narrowing the definition of atheist after you inform me there are people out there call themselves atheist but did not derive the logic by themselves. i belief you can be atheist while be a part of religion, as empirical evidences(your mom for example) support this claim. in wiki's definition "Atheists are persons who either affirm belief in the nonexistence of a god or gods[1] or reject belief in a god.[2] When defined more broadly, atheists are those without a belief in deities, alternatively called nontheism." this definition specifically target "deities, god or gods" it did not say anything about religion at all, ya you can argue that the god or gods is part of the religion. If you want to attempt to destroy my belief i will not even try to waste my time. However, if you want to prove my argument is fallacious, you need to not attack my beliefs, rather, you need to attack my argument below. My argument is that people who are highly educated, process the ability to think critically, and informed with empirical evidences are more likely to be atheists. and in defense of what you said "Using Dawkin's ideals as an argument is flawed as one person's view does not constitute as the absolute truth nor do they reflect the sentimentality of all of his colleagues." Dawkin's argument i'm quoting here is not one person's view, you did not know how many samples he used in his study, and yes it is true that 2% out of all the people in his study believed in creationism, but 98% of his colleagues in his study turns out to be non-god-believers, his study did not ask rather or not they are part of a religion, many could be part of a religion for all we know. if i recall this correctly, it was very specific about creationism and as we are on the topic, why don't you give us your argument in this matter of atheist vs creationism and let us try to pick it apart? | ||
|
rei
United States3593 Posts
On February 02 2009 06:10 Jibba wrote: rei, as a secular humanist and someone who has read from Dawkins to Hitchens to Harris to Russell, I think your arguments suck. teach me jibba, offer us your argument please, it's only worth my time if i learn something new. | ||
|
hazz
United Kingdom570 Posts
Belifs? nice whos the retard now Anyway I spoke in absolutes because its much quicker than writing page upon pages proving god isn't real when its not going to change anyones opinion (That's the whole idea behind "faith" - confidently believing in something without proof.) Also I still agree with the "fixed" second point and my own; I don't see how believing that anyone who thinks less of someone for being an atheist is dumb implies that thinking less of someone for having a set of beliefs is alright. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Personally, I like to counter with W.K. Clifford's Ethics of Belief and use the ship captain example to show that private, subjective belief without proof is immoral. If a ship captain sets sail believing his ship to be seaworthy based on a gut instinct, without actual proof, and the vessel sinks, it is the captain who is at fault for everyone's death. Even if everyone lives, he is still at fault for putting their lives at risk, and so the same can be said any time that your unproven beliefs affect other people, such as when you're talking or posting on internet forums. Still, we all commit that error on a fairly regular basis and they could still contest that there are no empirical truths either, or pull something crazy like Batshit Spinoza. Again, you can't argue with someone else's faith. They've "experienced" it and you haven't. I suppose you could ask them why they believe in X instead of Y, and the obvious answer will be their upbringing, but if they're a pluralist then they might say Y would have been just as suitable. And if they're someone that is ok with pluralism and accepts the use of logic for all things besides personal faith, and are ethical (whether because of their religion or not) then they're probably a pretty decent human being anyways and there's no pressing reason to force them to change or be a dick to them. You don't believe in Heaven and Hell so you don't have to "save" people. | ||
|
rei
United States3593 Posts
I wonder how they deal with the contradiction between their logic and beliefs. As for everybody else who base their beliefs on logic, my argument would hold true. People who, process the ability to think critically, and informed with empirical evidences are more likely to be atheists. it just happens that most people with phds fits into the category of critical thinker and informed with empirical evidence. | ||
|
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
Why are you still talking about creationism? How many times do we have to go over this? | ||
|
Pika Chu
Romania2510 Posts
Religion is usually about feeling stuff, it's not logical. | ||
| ||
