In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama on Friday issued pardons for 17 people, largely for minor offenses.
Those receiving pardons came from 13 states and had been sentenced for crimes that included falsely altering a money order, unauthorized acquisition of food stamps, drug violations, and possession of an unregistered firearm.
No one well-known was on the list released by the White House. Some of the crimes drew light penalties in the first place – such as a North Carolina woman sentenced to two years' probation and 100 hours of community service for distributing satellite cable decryption devices.
A dozen of the 17 had been placed on probation. The other five had been sentenced to prison terms ranging from 54 days to five years. For those placed on probation, the length ranged from one year to five years.
The White House offered no details on why these particular people were selected by Obama, who has issued relatively few pardons since taking office.
He granted his first pardons in December 2010, to nine people convicted of such offenses as drug possession, counterfeiting and mutilating coins. He also issued two separate batches of pardons in 2011, including eight people in May for relatively minor offenses and five people that November.
On March 03 2013 13:31 WolfintheSheep wrote: I'm almost certain that attaching a rock on a stick came long before religion.
So...you don't think that inventing tools to solve problems is critical thinking?
no
So let's be clear here: You think there is no critical thinking in science, in engineering, in military, in language, in communication, etc?
instrumental rationality is not critical thought, it's instrumental rationality.
Because all of those had to be built from the ground up, and something as simple as creating a fire had absolutely no framework of knowledge to start with.
Sure it did. You watch shit burn. This is totally beside the point though (see above). "Critical thought" is not just code for "being smart," it's a specific thing.
So if you're saying invention and the exploration of knowledge does not qualify as critical thinking, you're essentially saying that religion is the only subject that has any critical thinking in past, present or future.
Critical thinking is one kind of way in which you can undertake the "invention and exploration of knowledge."
So once again, from the beginning of man to the birth of the first religion, you believe that not one single individual bothered to question why anything happened around him?
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama on Friday issued pardons for 17 people, largely for minor offenses.
Those receiving pardons came from 13 states and had been sentenced for crimes that included falsely altering a money order, unauthorized acquisition of food stamps, drug violations, and possession of an unregistered firearm.
No one well-known was on the list released by the White House. Some of the crimes drew light penalties in the first place – such as a North Carolina woman sentenced to two years' probation and 100 hours of community service for distributing satellite cable decryption devices.
A dozen of the 17 had been placed on probation. The other five had been sentenced to prison terms ranging from 54 days to five years. For those placed on probation, the length ranged from one year to five years.
The White House offered no details on why these particular people were selected by Obama, who has issued relatively few pardons since taking office.
He granted his first pardons in December 2010, to nine people convicted of such offenses as drug possession, counterfeiting and mutilating coins. He also issued two separate batches of pardons in 2011, including eight people in May for relatively minor offenses and five people that November.
So...you don't think that inventing tools to solve problems is critical thinking?
no
So let's be clear here: You think there is no critical thinking in science, in engineering, in military, in language, in communication, etc?
instrumental rationality is not critical thought, it's instrumental rationality.
Because all of those had to be built from the ground up, and something as simple as creating a fire had absolutely no framework of knowledge to start with.
Sure it did. You watch shit burn. This is totally beside the point though (see above). "Critical thought" is not just code for "being smart," it's a specific thing.
So if you're saying invention and the exploration of knowledge does not qualify as critical thinking, you're essentially saying that religion is the only subject that has any critical thinking in past, present or future.
Critical thinking is one kind of way in which you can undertake the "invention and exploration of knowledge."
So once again, from the beginning of man to the birth of the first religion, you believe that not one single individual bothered to question why anything happened around him?
Where do you think religion CAME from? good grief
Not from that, according to you:
Critical thought arose from the exegesis of scripture.
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
Ah, the passage after the passage most likely to be incorrectly preached at weddings...
I don't know anything about weddings. I just know good poetry when I read it.
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
I agree religious texts should be treated as interesting literature, but what makes them so special? What makes them so profound? I can see them being read and discussed alongside the works of Homer but I don't see the need to treat them as anything more.
I don't think they are special. I think the written word is sacred, in general. Those are just texts that need special defending, in our day and age. And they really are quite good.
I'm sorry, special defending? From what? In what way? We're not burning holy books (at least not in an effort to get rid of all of them).
It is not necessary to burn books to get rid of them. People just have to stop reading them. Or, worse, the only people who read them are the people who don't read them critically! They need defending from the fashionable and childish attitude that they are worthy of being despised, which could not be further from the truth.
The books are fine. I feel you're confusing the issue of religious books and religion itself. And for the record, there are a lot of other works I would save (ie. have people read, per your definition) in front of the bible or any other religious text if I had to choose.
So...you don't think that inventing tools to solve problems is critical thinking?
no
So let's be clear here: You think there is no critical thinking in science, in engineering, in military, in language, in communication, etc?
instrumental rationality is not critical thought, it's instrumental rationality.
Because all of those had to be built from the ground up, and something as simple as creating a fire had absolutely no framework of knowledge to start with.
Sure it did. You watch shit burn. This is totally beside the point though (see above). "Critical thought" is not just code for "being smart," it's a specific thing.
So if you're saying invention and the exploration of knowledge does not qualify as critical thinking, you're essentially saying that religion is the only subject that has any critical thinking in past, present or future.
Critical thinking is one kind of way in which you can undertake the "invention and exploration of knowledge."
So once again, from the beginning of man to the birth of the first religion, you believe that not one single individual bothered to question why anything happened around him?
WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama on Friday issued pardons for 17 people, largely for minor offenses.
Those receiving pardons came from 13 states and had been sentenced for crimes that included falsely altering a money order, unauthorized acquisition of food stamps, drug violations, and possession of an unregistered firearm.
No one well-known was on the list released by the White House. Some of the crimes drew light penalties in the first place – such as a North Carolina woman sentenced to two years' probation and 100 hours of community service for distributing satellite cable decryption devices.
A dozen of the 17 had been placed on probation. The other five had been sentenced to prison terms ranging from 54 days to five years. For those placed on probation, the length ranged from one year to five years.
The White House offered no details on why these particular people were selected by Obama, who has issued relatively few pardons since taking office.
He granted his first pardons in December 2010, to nine people convicted of such offenses as drug possession, counterfeiting and mutilating coins. He also issued two separate batches of pardons in 2011, including eight people in May for relatively minor offenses and five people that November.
So...you don't think that inventing tools to solve problems is critical thinking?
no
So let's be clear here: You think there is no critical thinking in science, in engineering, in military, in language, in communication, etc?
instrumental rationality is not critical thought, it's instrumental rationality.
Because all of those had to be built from the ground up, and something as simple as creating a fire had absolutely no framework of knowledge to start with.
Sure it did. You watch shit burn. This is totally beside the point though (see above). "Critical thought" is not just code for "being smart," it's a specific thing.
So if you're saying invention and the exploration of knowledge does not qualify as critical thinking, you're essentially saying that religion is the only subject that has any critical thinking in past, present or future.
Critical thinking is one kind of way in which you can undertake the "invention and exploration of knowledge."
So once again, from the beginning of man to the birth of the first religion, you believe that not one single individual bothered to question why anything happened around him?
Critical thought arose from the exegesis of scripture.
Critical thought is not just asking questions about the world. Critical thought is more specific kind of philosophical argumentation. Again, "critical thought" is not just code for "whatever kind of thinking you happen to think is good and useful." It's about the interpretation of texts and the interrogation of argumentative positions.
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
Ah, the passage after the passage most likely to be incorrectly preached at weddings...
I don't know anything about weddings. I just know good poetry when I read it.
On March 03 2013 14:09 HellRoxYa wrote:
On March 03 2013 14:04 sam!zdat wrote:
On March 03 2013 13:54 erin[go]bragh wrote:
On March 03 2013 13:42 sam!zdat wrote:
On March 03 2013 13:39 Roe wrote:
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
I agree religious texts should be treated as interesting literature, but what makes them so special? What makes them so profound? I can see them being read and discussed alongside the works of Homer but I don't see the need to treat them as anything more.
I don't think they are special. I think the written word is sacred, in general. Those are just texts that need special defending, in our day and age. And they really are quite good.
I'm sorry, special defending? From what? In what way? We're not burning holy books (at least not in an effort to get rid of all of them).
It is not necessary to burn books to get rid of them. People just have to stop reading them. Or, worse, the only people who read them are the people who don't read them critically! They need defending from the fashionable and childish attitude that they are worthy of being despised, which could not be further from the truth.
The books are fine. I feel you're confusing the issue of religious books and religion itself. And for the record, there are a lot of other works I would save (ie. have people read, per your definition) in front of the bible or any other religious text if I had to choose.
No, I think it's religious people who confuse the issue of religious books and religion itself.
I have no use for speculation about which books I want to save. If you have not read the Bible and put some thought into it, you are not an educated person.
On March 03 2013 14:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Nobody can pinpoint when exactly man started to think "What the hell?" in relation to their current situation.
That's not critical thought. That's just the human condition.
So...you don't think that inventing tools to solve problems is critical thinking?
no
So let's be clear here: You think there is no critical thinking in science, in engineering, in military, in language, in communication, etc?
instrumental rationality is not critical thought, it's instrumental rationality.
Because all of those had to be built from the ground up, and something as simple as creating a fire had absolutely no framework of knowledge to start with.
Sure it did. You watch shit burn. This is totally beside the point though (see above). "Critical thought" is not just code for "being smart," it's a specific thing.
So if you're saying invention and the exploration of knowledge does not qualify as critical thinking, you're essentially saying that religion is the only subject that has any critical thinking in past, present or future.
Critical thinking is one kind of way in which you can undertake the "invention and exploration of knowledge."
So once again, from the beginning of man to the birth of the first religion, you believe that not one single individual bothered to question why anything happened around him?
Where do you think religion CAME from? good grief
Not from that, according to you:
Critical thought arose from the exegesis of scripture.
Critical thought is not just asking questions about the world. Critical thought is more specific kind of philosophical argumentation. Again, "critical thought" is not just code for "whatever kind of thinking you happen to think is good and useful." It's about the interpretation of texts and the interrogation of argumentative positions.
Odd, I'm completely unable to find one single definition of "critical thought" that even mentions "texts" or "argumentative positions".
On March 03 2013 14:32 sam!zdat wrote: No, I think it's religious people who confuse the issue of religious books and religion itself.
I have no use for speculation about which books I want to save. If you have not read the Bible and put some thought into it, you are not an educated person.
On March 03 2013 14:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Nobody can pinpoint when exactly man started to think "What the hell?" in relation to their current situation.
That's not critical thought. That's just the human condition.
But it tends to lead to thinking about ones beliefs and it's reasons. One can't argue that religion or tradition didn't change before Socrates.
So...you don't think that inventing tools to solve problems is critical thinking?
no
So let's be clear here: You think there is no critical thinking in science, in engineering, in military, in language, in communication, etc?
instrumental rationality is not critical thought, it's instrumental rationality.
Because all of those had to be built from the ground up, and something as simple as creating a fire had absolutely no framework of knowledge to start with.
Sure it did. You watch shit burn. This is totally beside the point though (see above). "Critical thought" is not just code for "being smart," it's a specific thing.
So if you're saying invention and the exploration of knowledge does not qualify as critical thinking, you're essentially saying that religion is the only subject that has any critical thinking in past, present or future.
Critical thinking is one kind of way in which you can undertake the "invention and exploration of knowledge."
So once again, from the beginning of man to the birth of the first religion, you believe that not one single individual bothered to question why anything happened around him?
Where do you think religion CAME from? good grief
Not from that, according to you:
Critical thought arose from the exegesis of scripture.
Critical thought is not just asking questions about the world. Critical thought is more specific kind of philosophical argumentation. Again, "critical thought" is not just code for "whatever kind of thinking you happen to think is good and useful." It's about the interpretation of texts and the interrogation of argumentative positions.
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
Ah, the passage after the passage most likely to be incorrectly preached at weddings...
I don't know anything about weddings. I just know good poetry when I read it.
On March 03 2013 14:09 HellRoxYa wrote:
On March 03 2013 14:04 sam!zdat wrote:
On March 03 2013 13:54 erin[go]bragh wrote:
On March 03 2013 13:42 sam!zdat wrote:
On March 03 2013 13:39 Roe wrote:
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
I agree religious texts should be treated as interesting literature, but what makes them so special? What makes them so profound? I can see them being read and discussed alongside the works of Homer but I don't see the need to treat them as anything more.
I don't think they are special. I think the written word is sacred, in general. Those are just texts that need special defending, in our day and age. And they really are quite good.
I'm sorry, special defending? From what? In what way? We're not burning holy books (at least not in an effort to get rid of all of them).
It is not necessary to burn books to get rid of them. People just have to stop reading them. Or, worse, the only people who read them are the people who don't read them critically! They need defending from the fashionable and childish attitude that they are worthy of being despised, which could not be further from the truth.
The books are fine. I feel you're confusing the issue of religious books and religion itself. And for the record, there are a lot of other works I would save (ie. have people read, per your definition) in front of the bible or any other religious text if I had to choose.
No, I think it's religious people who confuse the issue of religious books and religion itself.
I have no use for speculation about which books I want to save. If you have not read the Bible and put some thought into it, you are not an educated person.
You just called a lot of people uneducated, a lot of people who are probably much smarter than either you or I but who are not interested in studying an ancient book. Luckily my Roman Catholic upbringing serves me well (for once) in that I can at least for now count myself on the sam!zdat educated list, Bible study was no fun but hey you need it to get confirmed.
So...you don't think that inventing tools to solve problems is critical thinking?
no
So let's be clear here: You think there is no critical thinking in science, in engineering, in military, in language, in communication, etc?
instrumental rationality is not critical thought, it's instrumental rationality.
Because all of those had to be built from the ground up, and something as simple as creating a fire had absolutely no framework of knowledge to start with.
Sure it did. You watch shit burn. This is totally beside the point though (see above). "Critical thought" is not just code for "being smart," it's a specific thing.
So if you're saying invention and the exploration of knowledge does not qualify as critical thinking, you're essentially saying that religion is the only subject that has any critical thinking in past, present or future.
Critical thinking is one kind of way in which you can undertake the "invention and exploration of knowledge."
So once again, from the beginning of man to the birth of the first religion, you believe that not one single individual bothered to question why anything happened around him?
Where do you think religion CAME from? good grief
Not from that, according to you:
Critical thought arose from the exegesis of scripture.
Critical thought is not just asking questions about the world. Critical thought is more specific kind of philosophical argumentation. Again, "critical thought" is not just code for "whatever kind of thinking you happen to think is good and useful." It's about the interpretation of texts and the interrogation of argumentative positions.
Odd, I'm completely unable to find one single definition of "critical thought" that even mentions "texts" or "argumentative positions".
You're probably looking in the wrong places. Those who attempt to find "definitions" for things typically do.
On March 03 2013 14:32 sam!zdat wrote: No, I think it's religious people who confuse the issue of religious books and religion itself.
I have no use for speculation about which books I want to save. If you have not read the Bible and put some thought into it, you are not an educated person.
Oh, awesome, a True Scotsman argument.
As I never tire of saying, I am nothing if not a True Scotsman.
On March 03 2013 14:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Nobody can pinpoint when exactly man started to think "What the hell?" in relation to their current situation.
That's not critical thought. That's just the human condition.
But it tends to lead to thinking about ones beliefs and it's reasons.
Sure, that's why the human condition eventually ends up leading to critical thought... But you have to posit some beliefs before you can critique them, obviously. You can't start being critical right from the get-go.
You people need to stop imagining that pre-historical people are just modern subjects wearing some stinky fur clothes. They thought very differently than we do.
One can't argue that religion or tradition didn't change before Socrates.
Why the hell would I want to argue THAT. You think critical thinking is the only way things change?
So...you don't think that inventing tools to solve problems is critical thinking?
no
So let's be clear here: You think there is no critical thinking in science, in engineering, in military, in language, in communication, etc?
instrumental rationality is not critical thought, it's instrumental rationality.
Because all of those had to be built from the ground up, and something as simple as creating a fire had absolutely no framework of knowledge to start with.
Sure it did. You watch shit burn. This is totally beside the point though (see above). "Critical thought" is not just code for "being smart," it's a specific thing.
So if you're saying invention and the exploration of knowledge does not qualify as critical thinking, you're essentially saying that religion is the only subject that has any critical thinking in past, present or future.
Critical thinking is one kind of way in which you can undertake the "invention and exploration of knowledge."
So once again, from the beginning of man to the birth of the first religion, you believe that not one single individual bothered to question why anything happened around him?
Where do you think religion CAME from? good grief
Not from that, according to you:
Critical thought arose from the exegesis of scripture.
Critical thought is not just asking questions about the world. Critical thought is more specific kind of philosophical argumentation. Again, "critical thought" is not just code for "whatever kind of thinking you happen to think is good and useful." It's about the interpretation of texts and the interrogation of argumentative positions.
On March 03 2013 14:28 HellRoxYa wrote:
On March 03 2013 14:09 sam!zdat wrote:
On March 03 2013 14:08 ControlMonkey wrote:
On March 03 2013 13:42 sam!zdat wrote:
On March 03 2013 13:39 Roe wrote:
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
Ah, the passage after the passage most likely to be incorrectly preached at weddings...
I don't know anything about weddings. I just know good poetry when I read it.
On March 03 2013 14:09 HellRoxYa wrote:
On March 03 2013 14:04 sam!zdat wrote:
On March 03 2013 13:54 erin[go]bragh wrote:
On March 03 2013 13:42 sam!zdat wrote:
On March 03 2013 13:39 Roe wrote:
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
I agree religious texts should be treated as interesting literature, but what makes them so special? What makes them so profound? I can see them being read and discussed alongside the works of Homer but I don't see the need to treat them as anything more.
I don't think they are special. I think the written word is sacred, in general. Those are just texts that need special defending, in our day and age. And they really are quite good.
I'm sorry, special defending? From what? In what way? We're not burning holy books (at least not in an effort to get rid of all of them).
It is not necessary to burn books to get rid of them. People just have to stop reading them. Or, worse, the only people who read them are the people who don't read them critically! They need defending from the fashionable and childish attitude that they are worthy of being despised, which could not be further from the truth.
The books are fine. I feel you're confusing the issue of religious books and religion itself. And for the record, there are a lot of other works I would save (ie. have people read, per your definition) in front of the bible or any other religious text if I had to choose.
No, I think it's religious people who confuse the issue of religious books and religion itself.
I have no use for speculation about which books I want to save. If you have not read the Bible and put some thought into it, you are not an educated person.
You just called a lot of people uneducated, a lot of people who are probably much smarter than either you or I but who are not interested in studying an ancient book. Luckily my Roman Catholic upbringing serves me well (for once) in that I can at least for now count myself on the sam!zdat educated list, Bible study was no fun but hey you need it to get confirmed.
A lot of people ARE uneducated. We can leave the question of who's smarter for another pissing contest.
Don't get all comfy though, son. You need a lot more than the Bible to get on my "educated" list. (please note that I do not consider myself an adequately educated person (edit: obviously, or else I wouldn't be about to go spend five years of my life getting more educated), just educated enough to know that people who dismiss religious texts are even more ignorant than I)
On March 03 2013 13:49 WolfintheSheep wrote: [quote] So...you don't think that inventing tools to solve problems is critical thinking?
no
So let's be clear here: You think there is no critical thinking in science, in engineering, in military, in language, in communication, etc?
instrumental rationality is not critical thought, it's instrumental rationality.
Because all of those had to be built from the ground up, and something as simple as creating a fire had absolutely no framework of knowledge to start with.
Sure it did. You watch shit burn. This is totally beside the point though (see above). "Critical thought" is not just code for "being smart," it's a specific thing.
So if you're saying invention and the exploration of knowledge does not qualify as critical thinking, you're essentially saying that religion is the only subject that has any critical thinking in past, present or future.
Critical thinking is one kind of way in which you can undertake the "invention and exploration of knowledge."
So once again, from the beginning of man to the birth of the first religion, you believe that not one single individual bothered to question why anything happened around him?
Where do you think religion CAME from? good grief
Not from that, according to you:
Critical thought arose from the exegesis of scripture.
Critical thought is not just asking questions about the world. Critical thought is more specific kind of philosophical argumentation. Again, "critical thought" is not just code for "whatever kind of thinking you happen to think is good and useful." It's about the interpretation of texts and the interrogation of argumentative positions.
Odd, I'm completely unable to find one single definition of "critical thought" that even mentions "texts" or "argumentative positions".
You're probably looking in the wrong places. Those who attempt to find "definitions" for things typically do.
On March 03 2013 14:32 sam!zdat wrote: No, I think it's religious people who confuse the issue of religious books and religion itself.
I have no use for speculation about which books I want to save. If you have not read the Bible and put some thought into it, you are not an educated person.
Oh, awesome, a True Scotsman argument.
As I never tire of saying, I am nothing if not a True Scotsman.
On March 03 2013 14:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Nobody can pinpoint when exactly man started to think "What the hell?" in relation to their current situation.
That's not critical thought. That's just the human condition.
But it tends to lead to thinking about ones beliefs and it's reasons.
Sure, that's why the human condition eventually ends up leading to critical thought... But you have to posit some beliefs before you can critique them, obviously. You can't start being critical right from the get-go.
You people need to stop imagining that pre-historical people are just modern subjects wearing some stinky fur clothes. They thought very differently than we do.
On March 03 2013 13:49 WolfintheSheep wrote: [quote] So...you don't think that inventing tools to solve problems is critical thinking?
no
So let's be clear here: You think there is no critical thinking in science, in engineering, in military, in language, in communication, etc?
instrumental rationality is not critical thought, it's instrumental rationality.
Because all of those had to be built from the ground up, and something as simple as creating a fire had absolutely no framework of knowledge to start with.
Sure it did. You watch shit burn. This is totally beside the point though (see above). "Critical thought" is not just code for "being smart," it's a specific thing.
So if you're saying invention and the exploration of knowledge does not qualify as critical thinking, you're essentially saying that religion is the only subject that has any critical thinking in past, present or future.
Critical thinking is one kind of way in which you can undertake the "invention and exploration of knowledge."
So once again, from the beginning of man to the birth of the first religion, you believe that not one single individual bothered to question why anything happened around him?
Where do you think religion CAME from? good grief
Not from that, according to you:
Critical thought arose from the exegesis of scripture.
Critical thought is not just asking questions about the world. Critical thought is more specific kind of philosophical argumentation. Again, "critical thought" is not just code for "whatever kind of thinking you happen to think is good and useful." It's about the interpretation of texts and the interrogation of argumentative positions.
On March 03 2013 14:28 HellRoxYa wrote:
On March 03 2013 14:09 sam!zdat wrote:
On March 03 2013 14:08 ControlMonkey wrote:
On March 03 2013 13:42 sam!zdat wrote:
On March 03 2013 13:39 Roe wrote:
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
Ah, the passage after the passage most likely to be incorrectly preached at weddings...
I don't know anything about weddings. I just know good poetry when I read it.
On March 03 2013 14:09 HellRoxYa wrote:
On March 03 2013 14:04 sam!zdat wrote:
On March 03 2013 13:54 erin[go]bragh wrote:
On March 03 2013 13:42 sam!zdat wrote:
On March 03 2013 13:39 Roe wrote: [quote]
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
I agree religious texts should be treated as interesting literature, but what makes them so special? What makes them so profound? I can see them being read and discussed alongside the works of Homer but I don't see the need to treat them as anything more.
I don't think they are special. I think the written word is sacred, in general. Those are just texts that need special defending, in our day and age. And they really are quite good.
I'm sorry, special defending? From what? In what way? We're not burning holy books (at least not in an effort to get rid of all of them).
It is not necessary to burn books to get rid of them. People just have to stop reading them. Or, worse, the only people who read them are the people who don't read them critically! They need defending from the fashionable and childish attitude that they are worthy of being despised, which could not be further from the truth.
The books are fine. I feel you're confusing the issue of religious books and religion itself. And for the record, there are a lot of other works I would save (ie. have people read, per your definition) in front of the bible or any other religious text if I had to choose.
No, I think it's religious people who confuse the issue of religious books and religion itself.
I have no use for speculation about which books I want to save. If you have not read the Bible and put some thought into it, you are not an educated person.
You just called a lot of people uneducated, a lot of people who are probably much smarter than either you or I but who are not interested in studying an ancient book. Luckily my Roman Catholic upbringing serves me well (for once) in that I can at least for now count myself on the sam!zdat educated list, Bible study was no fun but hey you need it to get confirmed.
A lot of people ARE uneducated. We can leave the question of who's smarter for another pissing contest.
Don't get all comfy though, son. You need a lot more than the Bible to get on my "educated" list. (please note that I do not consider myself an adequately educated person, just educated enough to know that people who dismiss religious texts are even more ignorant than I)
Question: Is Aristotle to be considered uneducated since he did not read the bible?
Sure, that's why the human condition eventually ends up leading to critical thought... But you have to posit some beliefs before you can critique them, obviously. You can't start being critical right from the get-go.
Right, and these beliefs don't have to be religious. They could've been anything else. And then people could criticize them.
So let's be clear here: You think there is no critical thinking in science, in engineering, in military, in language, in communication, etc?
instrumental rationality is not critical thought, it's instrumental rationality.
Because all of those had to be built from the ground up, and something as simple as creating a fire had absolutely no framework of knowledge to start with.
Sure it did. You watch shit burn. This is totally beside the point though (see above). "Critical thought" is not just code for "being smart," it's a specific thing.
So if you're saying invention and the exploration of knowledge does not qualify as critical thinking, you're essentially saying that religion is the only subject that has any critical thinking in past, present or future.
Critical thinking is one kind of way in which you can undertake the "invention and exploration of knowledge."
So once again, from the beginning of man to the birth of the first religion, you believe that not one single individual bothered to question why anything happened around him?
Where do you think religion CAME from? good grief
Not from that, according to you:
Critical thought arose from the exegesis of scripture.
Critical thought is not just asking questions about the world. Critical thought is more specific kind of philosophical argumentation. Again, "critical thought" is not just code for "whatever kind of thinking you happen to think is good and useful." It's about the interpretation of texts and the interrogation of argumentative positions.
Odd, I'm completely unable to find one single definition of "critical thought" that even mentions "texts" or "argumentative positions".
You're probably looking in the wrong places. Those who attempt to find "definitions" for things typically do.
On March 03 2013 14:32 sam!zdat wrote: No, I think it's religious people who confuse the issue of religious books and religion itself.
I have no use for speculation about which books I want to save. If you have not read the Bible and put some thought into it, you are not an educated person.
Oh, awesome, a True Scotsman argument.
As I never tire of saying, I am nothing if not a True Scotsman.
On March 03 2013 14:35 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
On March 03 2013 14:33 sam!zdat wrote:
On March 03 2013 14:32 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Nobody can pinpoint when exactly man started to think "What the hell?" in relation to their current situation.
That's not critical thought. That's just the human condition.
But it tends to lead to thinking about ones beliefs and it's reasons.
Sure, that's why the human condition eventually ends up leading to critical thought... But you have to posit some beliefs before you can critique them, obviously. You can't start being critical right from the get-go.
You people need to stop imagining that pre-historical people are just modern subjects wearing some stinky fur clothes. They thought very differently than we do.
One can't argue that religion or tradition didn't change before Socrates.
Why the hell would I want to argue THAT. You think critical thinking is the only way things change?
On March 03 2013 14:38 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:
On March 03 2013 14:32 sam!zdat wrote:
On March 03 2013 14:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On March 03 2013 14:25 sam!zdat wrote:
On March 03 2013 14:24 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On March 03 2013 14:18 sam!zdat wrote:
On March 03 2013 14:14 WolfintheSheep wrote:
On March 03 2013 14:04 sam!zdat wrote: [quote]
no
So let's be clear here: You think there is no critical thinking in science, in engineering, in military, in language, in communication, etc?
instrumental rationality is not critical thought, it's instrumental rationality.
Because all of those had to be built from the ground up, and something as simple as creating a fire had absolutely no framework of knowledge to start with.
Sure it did. You watch shit burn. This is totally beside the point though (see above). "Critical thought" is not just code for "being smart," it's a specific thing.
So if you're saying invention and the exploration of knowledge does not qualify as critical thinking, you're essentially saying that religion is the only subject that has any critical thinking in past, present or future.
Critical thinking is one kind of way in which you can undertake the "invention and exploration of knowledge."
So once again, from the beginning of man to the birth of the first religion, you believe that not one single individual bothered to question why anything happened around him?
Where do you think religion CAME from? good grief
Not from that, according to you:
Critical thought arose from the exegesis of scripture.
Critical thought is not just asking questions about the world. Critical thought is more specific kind of philosophical argumentation. Again, "critical thought" is not just code for "whatever kind of thinking you happen to think is good and useful." It's about the interpretation of texts and the interrogation of argumentative positions.
On March 03 2013 14:28 HellRoxYa wrote:
On March 03 2013 14:09 sam!zdat wrote:
On March 03 2013 14:08 ControlMonkey wrote:
On March 03 2013 13:42 sam!zdat wrote:
On March 03 2013 13:39 Roe wrote:
all of the world's religious texts are extremely profound documents that deserve our utmost respect and attention.
Why do you think that?
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.
Ah, the passage after the passage most likely to be incorrectly preached at weddings...
I don't know anything about weddings. I just know good poetry when I read it.
On March 03 2013 14:09 HellRoxYa wrote:
On March 03 2013 14:04 sam!zdat wrote:
On March 03 2013 13:54 erin[go]bragh wrote:
On March 03 2013 13:42 sam!zdat wrote: [quote]
Because I am an educated person. When I was young and foolish, I would have joined in with you in making fun of the religious. Then I grew up a little, and learned some things, and now I understand the world is not as simple as I once thought.
[quote]
I agree religious texts should be treated as interesting literature, but what makes them so special? What makes them so profound? I can see them being read and discussed alongside the works of Homer but I don't see the need to treat them as anything more.
I don't think they are special. I think the written word is sacred, in general. Those are just texts that need special defending, in our day and age. And they really are quite good.
I'm sorry, special defending? From what? In what way? We're not burning holy books (at least not in an effort to get rid of all of them).
It is not necessary to burn books to get rid of them. People just have to stop reading them. Or, worse, the only people who read them are the people who don't read them critically! They need defending from the fashionable and childish attitude that they are worthy of being despised, which could not be further from the truth.
The books are fine. I feel you're confusing the issue of religious books and religion itself. And for the record, there are a lot of other works I would save (ie. have people read, per your definition) in front of the bible or any other religious text if I had to choose.
No, I think it's religious people who confuse the issue of religious books and religion itself.
I have no use for speculation about which books I want to save. If you have not read the Bible and put some thought into it, you are not an educated person.
You just called a lot of people uneducated, a lot of people who are probably much smarter than either you or I but who are not interested in studying an ancient book. Luckily my Roman Catholic upbringing serves me well (for once) in that I can at least for now count myself on the sam!zdat educated list, Bible study was no fun but hey you need it to get confirmed.
A lot of people ARE uneducated. We can leave the question of who's smarter for another pissing contest.
Don't get all comfy though, son. You need a lot more than the Bible to get on my "educated" list. (please note that I do not consider myself an adequately educated person, just educated enough to know that people who dismiss religious texts are even more ignorant than I)
Question: Is Aristotle to be considered uneducated since he did not read the bible?
Were Aristotle alive today, he would have a great deal to catch up on.
Sure, that's why the human condition eventually ends up leading to critical thought... But you have to posit some beliefs before you can critique them, obviously. You can't start being critical right from the get-go.
Right, and these beliefs don't have to be religious. They could've been anything else. And then people could criticize them.
If you don't have critical thought, I don't see what kind of belief you could possibly have that wasn't a religious belief.
Why are people so eager to ret-con religion out of human history? The mind boggles.
edit: remember, kids: "The anatomy of man is a key to the anatomy of the ape."
On March 03 2013 14:55 Roe wrote: Then you need to critique your beliefs more, Sam.
obviously. what does it say above my temple?? But really, that's y'all's job. One cannot see the eiffel tower from the eiffel tower.
what's your point, specifically, though?
edit: man, religion is so much fun to argue about. after the revolution, we will spend all of our copious free time arguing about god, it's gonna be righteous
On March 03 2013 14:55 Roe wrote: Then you need to critique your beliefs more, Sam.
obviously. what does it say above my temple?? But really, that's y'all's job. One cannot see the eiffel tower from the eiffel tower.
what's your point, specifically, though?
I think my point was that you need to critique your beliefs about ...everything more. Did you ever go through the "HOTS" type education in high school? (I can't stop hearing heart of the swarm)
On March 03 2013 14:55 Roe wrote: Then you need to critique your beliefs more, Sam.
obviously. what does it say above my temple?? But really, that's y'all's job. One cannot see the eiffel tower from the eiffel tower.
what's your point, specifically, though?
I think my point was that you need to critique your beliefs about ...everything more. Did you ever go through the "HOTS" type education in high school? (I can't stop hearing heart of the swarm)
No, I went to a private high school and all our everything was different. what is that?
After reading this last page I've come to the conclusion that I should just ignore all of sam's posts because they just make me want to find the nearest philosophy major and punch him/her in the face. Why the hell do people feel the need to use specialized jargon every other word and then spend a paragraph name dropping some dead asshole.
EPT
