Are thinking skills generally absent among theists?

[guillaumeb]

I pose this question because the following was part of recent post:

The reason for this, I believe, is that its audience has no critical thinking skills. Such skills are not encouraged among religious believers, and for obvious reasons.

I know that this was simply an unsupported opinion expressed by one person, but to say such a thing in such absolute terms implies that religious believers as a class have no critical thinking skills.

What does this reveal about religious believers, but more importantly, what does it reveal about the speaker? And what does it reveal about the dialogue here that such an opinion would be expressed? Is this an obstacle to actual dialogue?

[edhopper]

1. No

but it seems to be compartmentalized.

[guillaumeb]

3. A very nuanced answer.

Better than the original post in my view.

Do you believe in literally anything that you cannot see or measure? Or do you accept the existence of anything that you cannot see or measure?

[edhopper]

12. That I personally can't,

or in general?

I am a naturalist philosophically.

[guillaumeb]

34. Prove that love exists. eom

[edhopper]

58. Really?

that one?

I expected that canard sooner or later.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=270869

[guillaumeb]

70. So you do have faith. As do we all.

[Doodley]

88. Love is proven all the time. Many actions that we see in human behavior are explained only by

feelings of love.

[guillaumeb]

89. Why not self-interest as an explanation?

That explanation also works.

[Doodley]

98. I will accept self-love as an explanation for self-serving actions that are based on an illusion

that might be held that another person is their idea of exquisite perfection to be worshiped and adored, for example.

[guillaumeb]

102. Which description could apply to many relationships.

[Doodley]

106. There is also the love of the senses. Why do I keep eating chocolates and ice cream? Why do I

keep eating pizza with pineapple and jalapeno? Because I love these things!

[guillaumeb]

108. Chocolate and iced cream are good for you.

And chocolate on iced cream.

I have never eaten pizza with pineapple, but I like pizza with habanero sauce.

[sprinkleeninow]

111. Apizza pie avec ham, pineapple, cheese, splashes of bbq sauce. 😋

[guillaumeb]

129. No ham thank you.

[sprinkleeninow]

141. Around these parts they call it Hawaiian. (?) 🙂

[Doodley]

113. Sounds good, but I recommend taking the leap of faith to the the gates of the pineapple pizza!

[sprinkleeninow]

120. Oh, with peepers onnit, too. Weather forecast: 'Hot today. Chili tamale.' 🤣

[guillaumeb]

131. Nice!!

[cilla4progress]

2. Im gonna say

Yes. Critical thinking must be suspended in those who take the Bible literally. So, a qualified yes.

[guillaumeb]

5. I understand that answer.

Thank you.

[yallerdawg]

13. Now THAT's a very nuanced answer!

In fact - it requires critical thinking to understand the Bible and other historical works of religion.

The literalist version repeatedly insisted upon - demanded - by unbelievers is the version that requires no thinking.

[edhopper]

32. But you still believe some of the Bible

is literally true.

Which of these do you think are literally true as presented in the Bible?

The Virgin Birth
The Nativity story
The stories of young Jesus
The actually words of Jesus in the text
The trial and crucifixion
the resurrection


In the Old Testement?

Abraham
Joacob
Joseph
Moses and the Exodus
The battle of Jericho
The life of Saul, David and Solomon

Can we consider all of that allegory and myth?

[saidsimplesimon]

85. ed, well done

There is a parallel. "Faith without works", behold your bible Christian Soldiers.

[guillaumeb]

35. And the literalist version is used by them as the basis for all of their attacks.

A very unrealistic way of approaching the 85% of humanity who actually are theists. But putting people into a little box is easier for some it seems.

[Lordquinton]

72. I should have read a bit before posting

Didn't take long for you to break out the literalist canard, while insisting on a literalist interpretation of an internet post.

[guillaumeb]

78. Was the post intended to be allegoric?

Or hyperbolic?
Or sarcastic?

You choose.

[Lordquinton]

135. Well, you made your choice clear

and then framed it and misled from the outset.

Maybe don't start on an intellectually dishonest note if you want actual discussion.

[edhopper]

90. Is Jesus

literally the son of God?

[guillaumeb]

91. Yes, as are we all children of the Creator.

In that we are all of the creation, and sharing that spark of the Creator.

[edhopper]

92. So Jesus was not

God himself, in human form, born of a virgin, crucified and resurrected. He was just another man with a philosophy you think is good?

[guillaumeb]

93. We are all children of the Creator.

We all share of the Creator.

[edhopper]

94. And you wonder

why people accuse you of not being willing to answer a straight question.

Done here.

[Voltaire2]

95. Its transparently dishonest.

[sprinkleeninow]

150. Jesus, the Christ, is God Incarnate.

Jesus was himself b4 the Resurrection/Transfiguration/Ascension.

He then became the Christ.

Christ Jesus is the Theanthropos, the God-Man.

He was seen after He arose from death. By a whole lotta people.

Oh, wait. That was staged weren't it.

[sprinkleeninow]

151. Furthermore,

every hooman bean is created in the 'Likeness' of God. One of these beings will transfigure into the 'Image' of Him upon acceptance, affirmation, proclamation and like that.

Don't shout me down. Jes' tellin' what I have in MY bag of believing.

[edhopper]

159. I think we have to

invoke Poe's Law here.

[sprinkleeninow]

160. And I'm invoking the 'Fifth'. Plus, "I do not recall." Done here.

[TlalocW]

4. In some sects, yes

And there's a whole branch of religious thought - apologetics - that evangelists like to spout off about that as far as I can tell, is supposed to make their followers feel smart and more secure in their beliefs because whenever they try it against anyone else, you see the arguments have more holes than a whiffle ball made out of Swiss cheese.

However, generally speaking, faith is not a virtue. There is no belief a person can't come to through faith so it's not a valid pathway to knowledge or truth.

TlalocW

[guillaumeb]

6. What is truth?

Truth, or what is held to be true, varies by era and culture.

[TlalocW]

8. True

But I will contend that faith is not the path to get you there no matter what it is.

TlalocW

[guillaumeb]

36. If that is your truth, or your belief, I accept that and understand it.

Guillaume

[thewhollytoast]

127. OK willy, since you are so bright....

....please tell us what god's middle name is.

[MineralMan]

128. No, thanks.

[guillaumeb]

133. I hope the joke is good.

If I like it, I will tell you one as well.

[sprinkleeninow]

149. ΟΩΝ

Omicron Omega Nu

"I Am He Who Is"

"[He] Who Is Without Beginning"

I'm not Willy.

[Doodley]

96. We all need faith - faith that our eyes and minds are not deceiving us, faith that our sources of

information are not sources of misinformation, faith in our own judgement and perception, to name but a few. We all have to take some kind of leap.

[greyl]

17. Do you mean truth the property, or truth the element? ;)

Truth the concept does keep on changing.

[guillaumeb]

37. Proof of evolution?

True.

[MineralMan]

60. The original post from which the material came from

was about apologetics and the audience for it. That part was left out by the author of the post at the top of this thread. Here's a link to the thread I started and from which that quote was taken:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=269030

[Voltaire2]

7. The biggest obstacle to dialogue here

is meta-threads whining about some opinion expressed here. What is the point of your endless carping about opinions that cause you upset? What do you hope to achieve with this op of yours?

[guillaumeb]

39. Illustrating my point nicely.

Thank you.

What is the point of some few atheists in posting endless variations of the religion=bad argument?

What is the point of some few atheists reflexively attacking any positive posts about theism?

What do these few atheists hope to achieve? My opinion is that they hope to discourage theists from posting in a forum devoted to....................THEISM.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

55. This isn't a forum devoted to theism, per se. At least not a protected ones.

Those exist. Feel free to go there. You'll have to dust off some cobwebs, though.

This is about talking about the good an bad of religion. This is talking about the effect religion has on society. That isn't always good. If you don't want to hear that, then, again, there are protected places where you won't have to hear that.

[guillaumeb]

66. Feel free to address my other points.

Or ignore them if you wish.

[Lordquinton]

75. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOL

10/10 humor post here Gil, laughed quite heartaly.

[guillaumeb]

80. One of your best to date.

Truly.

[Lordquinton]

134. Now you're not making sense

disappointing followup.

[Mariana]

137. I can be tough to ad lib.

Many performances fall flat when the actors deviate from the script.

[Lordquinton]

139. True

My points are always left unaddressed. Preferring fluff answers and subtle personal attacks. I even got a comment about a spelling mistake, ignoring any actual content in the whole thread.

[sprinkleeninow]

152. Y'all preferovať paperovy odpovede?

And subtle personal attacks?

[Lordquinton]

188. How about honest discussion and no attacks?

Theists have proven unable to manage that the years I've been posting here. The amount of hate and vitriol I get for persisting on asking a single question is unbelievable.

[sprinkleeninow]

192. And visa-versa, even-steven.

[Lordquinton]

193. No attacks and honest discussion

Pretty much the same thing, isn't it?

[sprinkleeninow]

194. I could 'fall' for one of y'all in a spiritual manner,

but I ain't fallin' for that in a response.

No attacks/derision/animosity. Period.

[Lordquinton]

195. It's pretty one sided

What comes from the non-theistic is mostly out of exasperation or someone past the point of caring anymore about trying to keep up their end when the other side has been in bad faith the whole team.

[sprinkleeninow]

197. I'm not correcting. You meant 'time' and not 'team', yes?

That somewhat outta control auto-correct/suggest. 😒

'Team' term has been in play lately. So mb auto suggest was right on? 😀

I stated b4. My intentions are not to evangelize, proselytize, coerce, brainwash, indoctrinate any according to the Faith I hold and attempt to practice. These are nowhere in my 'job description', if you will.

My 'charge' is to be salt and light, to the best of my ability. To 'share' (I do not care for that word, having been run into the ground) as best I am able that which I know and love about my Faith if asked or in response in a group such as this.

Scripture says not to keep your light under a bushel basket. What good comes of that.

I do have an aversion to any tradition of faith being shoved down throats.

And trust me saying: I am still far, far away from attaining His Image.

His Likeness is bestowed on all humans. His Image attained through theosis.

Eastern Orthodoxy holds this: "We know where the Church is, but we do not know where the Church is not." It's spiritually dangerous to be presumptive in that.

[Lordquinton]

207. It was supposed to be time

autocorrect makes things interesting. It likes to make god into good, which makes things really awkward when I say I don't believe in it.

This isn't a personal thing, it's an overall thing. I'm not exaggerating when I say that I've had simple questions responded to with outright abuse, that's the sort of thing in the past that's shaped how the room is today. Those people have either moved on themselves, or been PPR'd due to their actions.

This whole thing didn't start last tuesday, it has a long history.

[sprinkleeninow]

211. Am aware of this group having a long history.

Last edited Sun Feb 18, 2018, 04:02 AM - Edit history (1)

Mb repeating 'myself' here with this:

Joined up in 2001 (another user name) after you-know-what was selected as our
commander-in-chief, and then perpetrated illegal invasions of countries the other side of the world. "Gonna stop them over there, before they come over here."

Is it billions or trillions flushed down the proverbial toilet thanx to that maladministration.

I honestly can't recall how I found DU, but it was providential. Read the 9/11 forum a lot.
Like many, I was shell-shocked, and it was comforting to know you weren't alone in this.

[guillaumeb]

138. Or you did not follow.

[Lordquinton]

140. Uh-huh

It's not your non-answers that are completely non-sequitorial, it's everyone else in the world.


Does anyone ever buy that? Serious question.

[Act_of_Reparation]

158. Right. You are a veritable Faulkner and we're all too stupid to read what you've written.

We are, after all, but a mangy lot of uneducated bums coasting through life on our atheist privilege.

[trotsky]

171. Again insulting people's intelligence.

Stop with the personal attacks, gil. Is that how Christians are supposed to behave?

[guillaumeb]

172. No, making a comment on one poster deliberately refusing to engage.

A comment about tactics and agenda.

[trotsky]

173. "deliberately refusing to engage"

Perhaps you should try to be the change you wish to see, instead of insulting others.

[Mariana]

183. Do you think he wishes to see change?

I suspect he's been just as honest about that as he has been about everything else.

[trotsky]

186. As he's made clear, he is playing to an audience.

He's giving his fan club what they want. Indeed, why change?

[trotsky]

202. No, as multiple people have surmised, what gil wants is a platform.

Where positive news about religion is praised and encouraged, and only the mildest criticism is allowed.... IF it is properly "balanced" with praised to offset it.

[guillaumeb]

199. Perhaps you should try dialogue.

[trotsky]

201. Dammit, lost another one.

I've been trying, gil. I honestly have. I don't know why but you aren't helping.

[Lordquinton]

196. My comment was to a poster deliberately refusing to engage

And he then continued in the same manner, with the usual attacks I've come to expect from the theists here.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

114. You mean the two strawmen you built?

I don't need to talk about the mythical atheist that doesn't exist.

Nice try, though. 10 for effort.

[guillaumeb]

130. A good idea on your part.

Difficult to defend the indefensible when dialogue is the stated goal.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

161. Defend this then:

Please show me who is doing this:

What is the point of some few atheists in posting endless variations of the religion=bad argument?

What is the point of some few atheists reflexively attacking any positive posts about theism?

[guillaumeb]

164. Defend it? It is obvious to see from any reading of the posts here.

Defend rather the behavior of the non-theists.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

166. Obvious? Reread what you wrote.

What is the point of some few atheists in posting endless variations of the religion=bad argument?

What is the point of some few atheists reflexively attacking any positive posts about theism?

These are some pretty straight forward absolutes you make. "..posting ENDLESS variations...." "...REFLEXIVELY attacking ANY positive posts...." Please show me who does that. A couple posts on this thread, if they exist, does not show ENDLESS or attacking ANY. It just doesn't. You have created these strawmen. Please feel free to show us where they actually exist. Because they don't.

And I'm fine with the non-theists attacking a thread in which you BLATANTLY lie about what MM posted. I mean, seriously, you are sitting here in a thread where you started it all off by completely misrepresenting what someone said and then you just continue to post a variation of "why are pissed at me?"

[guillaumeb]

168. If you are reading the posts here, not just in this thread,

what I stated is obvious.

As to MM's post, go back and read the final sentence and explain it.

[Mariana]

184. His adoring public appreciate the lies, I'm sure.

It is helpful to remember that any reasonable reader who drops in can see perfectly well what is going on here. It's true there are some real whackadoodles who are so consumed with seething hatred for atheists that they'll fabricate all kinds of crazy shit, like the person who posted earlier today that we're to blame for the school shooting because we exist. Most people on DU aren't like that.

[trotsky]

83. "a forum devoted to....................THEISM."

No, it's not.

First off, it's the RELIGION group. Not the "THEISM" group.

Secondly, the statement of purpose, which has been presented to you dozens of times, is:

Discuss religious and theological issues. All relevant topics are permitted. Believers, non-believers, and everyone in-between are welcome.

Seriously, why do you have to be so dishonest? Non-believers can post their opinions about religion here. Religion (and people who believe in it) affect our lives too. We deserve to be heard as well. You don't get to monopolize the conversation. You're just embarrassing yourself more.

[guillaumeb]

101. Typical of you.

[Cuthbert Allgood]

116. To actually quote the rules of this group when discussing the rules of this group?

Yeah. That seems like trotsky. Someone that is trying to be honest and use the actual evidence we have.

Why can't you be more like trotsky?

[MineralMan]

124. As on many discussion forums, some always seem to conflate

participation with ownership. It happens frequently, regardless of the topic a forum is dedicated to discussing. Thus, the Religion Group is often considered to be the Religious Group by some. It's a commonplace.

I used to frequent a discussion forum that talked about outboard motors for boats. One very prolific poster had the odd belief that the only outboard motors worth discussing were Mercury brand motors. That person would frequently intrude into discussions of Johnson or Evinrude outboards, belittling those brands, even though the discussion was about correcting some problem a forum member was having.

When a new form member came aboard to ask about what outboard motor would be a good choice, the Mercury fan always popped in to sing that brand's praises and shout down any recommendations by others for different brands. The Mercury guy didn't make a lot of sense, much of the time, but he was vocal and prolific in his posts. For him, if it wasn't a Mercury, it was completely worthless for any function at all.

Finally, he was banished from the forum for making a constant nuisance of himself. He started his own discussion forum, where he only talked about how bad the one that banned him was. It was not a success.

And so it goes in Internet forums.

[trotsky]

122. To quote the Statement of Purpose for this forum?

I have some nerve, don't I?

Why can't I just let you bully everyone you don't like out of here, huh?

[sprinkleeninow]

104. I yam a 'believer' but at times border on Ms. In-between.

[Voltaire2]

97. This forum is not devoted to theism.

As you have been shown the text for the “about this forum” page repeatedly, which text clearly states that this forum is for discussing all aspects of religious belief and non-belief, I can only conclude that your statement is a deliberate untruth. A lie. Why would you do that?

[Doodley]

103. Maybe they are trying to wake up those who are blindly a member of a club, usually because they

have been indoctrinated. Atheists don't tend to belong to a club that tries to tell them how to think and how to treat others. Take, for example, the evangelicals in America who form a powerful political group that helps put the GOP and Trump into power, the very antithesis of Christian values.

[guillaumeb]

107. Judgmental.

Perhaps they are behaving in a way that they would condemn when others do it to them.

[Mariana]

154. I don't agree that the GOP and Trump exhibit

the very antithesis of Christian values. There is no consensus among Christians on what Christian values are or what they should be. Thousands of denominations and millions of independent practitioners all have different opinions about it. There's no way to determine objectively which of them are right and which are wrong.

[Doodley]

155. Are you saying that the expression Christian values is meaningless? To me, the most obvious meaning

would be to follow the examples shown in the stories of Jesus of how to treat others.

[Mariana]

156. Yes, I think the expression is meaningless.

There's nothing obvious about it. In the stories, Jesus often preached love and kindness, but he himself wasn't kind and loving all the time to everyone. Here are a couple of examples. Jesus didn't ask the merchants and the moneychangers to leave the temple grounds, and explain to them why they should. Instead, he physically attacked them and destroyed their property. Is that a good example of what to do when someone does something that offends you? Jesus was just plain nasty to the Canaanite woman who pleaded with him to heal her daughter, and only relented after she groveled and agreed with his comparison of her to a dog begging at the table. Is that how we should act when someone of a different ethnicity asks for help? I don't think either of these stories should be held up as an example of how to treat others.

[Act_of_Reparation]

157. I also believe the expression is meaningless.

People generally don't live by the morality delineated in the New Testament. They hold normative, modern social values in keeping with the prevailing ethics of their time. We can trace these ethics back to many sources: secularism, humanism, utilitarianism, Marxism, to name a few.

This Jesus character gets way more credit than he rightly deserves.

[gibraltar72]

9. Dilly Dilly

[Mariana]

10. I suspect most theists don't waste time

reading obviously logically flawed, lame-assed, idiotic attempts at apologetics, or if they do, they don't take such ridiculous crap seriously. The theists who do read such material, and take it seriously, are the audience the poster referred to. I think he is correct in his assessment of those particular theists.

[sprinkleeninow]

11. Well, hay, a diplomatic response. (no text)

[guillaumeb]

40. Perhaps the poster should have used language skills to more carefully word

what was meant, assuming that your interpretation of another's intent is correct.

[MineralMan]

61. Had you linked to the thread from which you quoted out of context,

people could check that for themselves. Here is the link you omitted:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=269030

[guillaumeb]

73. The last sentence reads:

Such skills are not encouraged among religious believers, and for obvious reasons.


One presumes that you wrote this. If you had written:

Such skills are not encouraged among some religious believers, and for obvious reasons.

I would have had no argument, but you did not. Was it an oversight, or evidence of intent?

[MineralMan]

162. Since you quoted me out of the context of my original post,

I will not engage with you on questions about individual sentences from that post. People are welcome to visit the original thread you quoted from to view my statement in its context. I have posted links to that post several times in this thread.

[guillaumeb]

165. Evasion is the best choice. Your last sentence clearly says what I talked about.

[yallerdawg]

14. I understand "no critical thinking skills" to mean....

"You are wrong to disagree with me and my superior intellect."

Or maybe I'm "paraphrasing incorrectly" or just "lying?"

[edhopper]

33. No

it's when you get numerous posts explaining to you why science is not the same as religious faith you can't seem to grasp the difference that has been laid out over and over and over.

[guillaumeb]

41. I suspect that you are correct.

But I too have an agenda, according to one poster. That poster states that I hate atheists. Proof of this was not included, of course, nor will it ever be.

[yallerdawg]

54. I have the intellect of a "third or fourth grader."

I'm a "rightwing fundie troll."

I am a "liar" - my personal favorite.

I guess this is the "respectful dialogue and debate" they want to have.

[guillaumeb]

63. We all know, based on their posts and responses,

what they think of theists.

With my limited ability, it always surprises me that I can successfully turn on the computer and spell Dimocrastic Undergroound,
or Demesofantastic underwear,
or whatever that site is.

That I can is clear proof that some higher power is guiding my hand.

Yes, it is all about respectful dialogue.

[sprinkleeninow]

148. Dames of Fantastic Under Garments? They sell neat stuff.

I messed with that!


~I 💛 your levity. 😉~
ΟΡΑ!

[sprinkleeninow]

110. I confess. I yam a dingbat, ding-a-ling, airhead meself. 🙄

[yallerdawg]

115. And you have every right to be!

Hell, it's the first thing mentioned in our Bill of Rights!

It is one of our most profound core values, this tolerance and inclusion we offer to everyone when we are at our best!

[sprinkleeninow]

118. Tanks for thee vote of confidence! 😉

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

15. One of the problems that those who concentrate all their

intellectual energies on the Bible is this: The Bible is the original short attention span work. There is absolutely no sustained narrative, and those who study it take great pride in being able to quote many verses, all of which are about 25 words or less.

And it's the lack of sustained narrative that is the real problem. If everything you think is important or worth knowing can be expressed in so few words, after a while you have no ability to follow an argument or line of reasoning that takes very much longer. Especially if it takes several thousand words to build the information and evidence you need to present. Bible readers quickly lose interest and start thinking, "yadda, yadda, yadda" and entirely miss the point.

Which is quite close to no critical thinking skills, come to think of it.

[guillaumeb]

42. If I were only intellectually advanced enough to follow this wordy answer.

Alas, I am a theist, so I totally missed your condescending and nonsensical answer.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

47. No surprise there.

But to reply back at you as if you'd responded yourself in a less condescending way, there's a reason why people who are steeped totally in religion and spend most of their reading on the Bible are unable to understand things like global warming. It's not something that can be explained quickly or easily. And it's why they are so bamboozled by Fox News and all of the rest of the right wing so-called news: those people claim to explain everything quickly and easily. Nuance is totally lost on them.

Theologians and other serious students do of course read a great deal more than the Bible. They immerse themselves in dense, difficult texts that take a lot of thinking about. I took a number of philosophy classes a long time back and for a while was tempted to major in that field.

But too often even those are reduced to one sentence or phrase. Actually reading the essay Descartes wrote in which he concludes, after careful analysis, that he knows he exists because he can think is incredibly rewarding. Just to parrot the phrase "I think, therefore I am" misses almost the entire point.

[greyl]

16. Emotional skill is required to abandon a cherished belief

after a mind has been faced with sufficient evidence against said belief.

(didn't you mean to include the word critical in your subject line?)

[guillaumeb]

43. Present the evidence.

Some confuse their own opinions with evidence and proof.

[sprinkleeninow]

18. Mon cher Guillaume, pour qui j'ai de l'affection. 🤗

[sprinkleeninow]

20. I yam talking to me, myself and I.

Stuff boggles my mind.

Caint make heads nor tails of it.

Any thing a practicing 'Grant It, O Lord' puts out here gets shot down with an unspoken bronx cheer and/or n.j. raspberry, whichever comes to mind first.

[guillaumeb]

44. Bon matin Sprinkleeninow.

Votre nom de plume, (ou votre roquelaure si vous preferez), est difficile a l'epeller.

Guillaume

[sprinkleeninow]

100. Ma plume est droopee from four days of rain! 🌧 😘

Ma gros roquelaure est tres soggee. 😊

Hay, dis is some fun! Converse en Français!
(My fractured...)

Accent à grave ou accent agui!

Remembering some stuff from circa 1960. 🤓

[guillaumeb]

105. Ici, on vois

un exemple intéressant de franglais.

Je sais bien que l'usage des accents est difficile pour les Anglophones.

[sprinkleeninow]

117. Oh oui, I yam interested!

Is Franglais a combo of Franch et anglophonie? 😉

Anglophonies souffrir tres regarding accents.

[guillaumeb]

132. Oui, le franglais,

c'est un mélange des deux.

[sprinkleeninow]

143. Heh-heh.

C'est un mélange.

I can't do the rest in parlez-vous bc the oven timer is beeping its fool head off.

Back in the day, I had a male buddy fronting a group named 'Mélange'! He doctored in music and we went to his thesis performance. He played the accordion! His group played for a Festival of Tables me (grammar) and a community member chaired. They played tunes co-ordinating with each table's theme. Like for the 'Circus' table, they played "Send In the Clowns". Also a fashion show featured. I just returned from Europe a few weeks b4 and today I don't know how I pulled it off. I had a best girl make the programs I designed. I made the stage design for the fashion show and hubby worked his brawn putting it in place. Each table also offered refreshments. Me (grammar) and co-chair had a table in addition to (what was I thinking?!!!) pulling this wingding off--"By the Sea". We realized a tidy sum for our church and a good time was had by all. Oh, I forgot about our door prizes. We had door prizes. Some of which was wine.🍷The lucky recipients did like them.😄

What evoked this recollection?

I have another nice, food-related story for another time.

I shoulda PM'd you.

I have a knack for messing up threads. Please forgive.

[sprinkleeninow]

144. Des deux.

Pas de deux, tour jeté, grande jeté, battement, arabesque, chaînes, 1st position, 2nd position, etc. Barre and adagio.

[helmedon1974]

19. Theists certainly have thinking skills...

They also have critical thinking skills. Most are quite intelligent and thoughtful people. The problem is that they're conditioned from birth to believe and not question. Or if they're allowed to question (some are literally not allowed to question their faith) they are not allowed, or not encouraged at least, to question their pastor/preacher/priest, vicar, etc.
There are others who simply don't want to question, even though many things don't add up. They simply prefer to live in the world they know. The one they grew up with. The safe, ordered world where it's God's will when a man kill his family, instead of a faulty bioelectric system in our less than perfect skinbags that contain our consciousness until that too fails.
Most people are afraid of what they don't know. Strong, intelligent people strive to correct the lack of knowledge and understand that there's much more to life than tired old dogma and fear of the love that's promised.
Basically, some people are happy being stupid and they're not encouraged to expand their knowledge. Certainly not when there's chores to do.

[guillaumeb]

45. Welcome to DU, and this dialogue.

I appreciated your comments. My point in posting was the highlight how some non-theists prefer insult to dialogue. If Democrats are sincere in reaching out, calling people idiots is one way to accomplish something, but that something is not dialogue or building bridges.

[sprinkleeninow]

123. Word! 👊 eom

[trotsky]

21. You have made a FALSE and MALICIOUS smear.

The post you are quoting does not refer to ALL theists.

It refers to "its audience" meaning the people who look to apologetics to justify their faith. Most believers do not do this.

Stop reframing in order to smear others.

Your behavior here is odious. Is this what Christians are like?

[guillaumeb]

46. You either misread the post,

and the excerpt. Or you prefer to misframe. I have my own opinion as to which applies. Others can, and will, arrive at their own conclusions.

[trotsky]

48. You have made a FALSE and MALICIOUS smear.

You misquoted someone else, and attacked them based on words they DIDN'T SAY.

You need to apologize, and if you were any kind of decent person you'd delete this thread since you started it on a LIE.

[guillaumeb]

62. Reread my answer. It still applies.

[trotsky]

64. And your smear is still FALSE and MALICIOUS.

Good Christian behavior, though, apparently.

I'm sure Jesus is smiling on you.

[sprinkleeninow]

121. We take showers 2x a day, wash our hair and put on deodorant...🤔

[Act_of_Reparation]

22. Thinking skills are generally absent among people.

[sprinkleeninow]

125. Like the 'gobble-gobbles' that landed mr. trashbag in our oval office?

Pardon my offending true worldwide turkeys.

[MineralMan]

23. The key word in my statement that you copied was "critical."

You left out that word in your post title. There is a difference between being able to think and using critical thinking. You may not recognize that difference, but it exists.

Please do me the courtesy in the future to put quotation marks around my words and link to the source. I'd appreciate that. Here is a link to the OP which contained that quote:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218269030

Please do not use anonymous callouts from DU threads and then criticize the unnamed author of words you copied and pasted. That is impolite, at best.

Post honestly, please, guillaumeb.

[trotsky]

24. "Post honestly, please, guillaumeb."

His posting history proves that he cannot. It does not work with his agenda of smearing atheists and framing the discussion - while accusing atheists of smearing theists and "misframing" the discussion.

[MineralMan]

26. Well, the original post from which the statement was

copied and pasted was by me, and posted on February 1. It has scrolled off by now. By copying and pasting my words without attribution, and then altering them for the post title, the poster of this thread did not allow readers to go and see what the original post I wrote discussed.

I find such usages of selective copying and pasting to be unfortunate, at best. The technique allows a poster to selectively distort what another poster has written. I mention this in this thread because I think that is the wrong way to go about discussion. I remember what I write, so I recognized my statement as being from a post about apologetics that I wrote.

The poster of this thread took my sentence out of its context to provide the basis of a criticism of something I wrote. He did not identify me as the author, nor did he link to the post where that sentence occurred. I find that sort of thing to be in very poor taste, at least. I consider it a dishonest way to discuss things.

[trotsky]

27. That's why I conclude it is precisely his agenda.

To lie about others, to misstate their positions into straw men that he can easily vanquish.

guillaumeb does not want honest discussion. He's playing to an imaginary fan club.

[MineralMan]

38. Well I think it's a shame. A transparent sort of shame, at that.

Uff da!

[guillaumeb]

50. Typical of you.

Such an example.

[trotsky]

51. Why yes, it's quite typical of me to point out your vicious and nasty tactics.

You're welcome. I will continue to do so.

[AtheistCrusader]

67. You talking into a mirror?

Typical of you.
Such an example.

I can only assume you are referencing yourself in the OP now. Because that is typical of you and example of your posting.

[Mariana]

119. Excellent, Gil. That'll please your adoring public. nt.

[sprinkleeninow]

126. On the contrary. I yam not imaginary. I yam right chere in splendid living body paint! 💄💅

[Act_of_Reparation]

25. Post honestly?

But how is he going to make the case that Christians are a persecuted minority if every little thing that comes out of his mouth has to be true?

[guillaumeb]

49. Calling me dishonest?

I understand. But you were the one who wrote what you wrote. You state that you are a writer, so I will assume that you put some thought into what you wrote.

And your excerpt stands as read, and there is only one interpretation of it. Nice try anyway.

[MineralMan]

59. Dude: If you post what I write, quote, credit and link.

Not doing that is what is dishonest.

[guillaumeb]

77. Read the last sentence.

And I did provide a link in another thread.

[MineralMan]

81. I'm talking about this thread, guillaumeb.

This is the discussion we are having. You quoted me out of context and failed to either name me or link to the context. That, sir, is a dishonest way to approach a discussion. You should be embarrassed, I think.

[guillaumeb]

82. Defend your last sentence.

It was either a blanket condemnation of all theists, which is the only way to read it, or it was a mistake in writing a sentence.

There are no other options. Revealing that you refuse so far to discuss it.

[MineralMan]

84. My last sentence where? Which last sentence, guillaumeb?

Perhaps if you provide a link, I'll know to which sentence you are referring. And so will others. Without a link, I'm at a loss to know how to respond.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Yes, becasue you omitted the direct point of his comment; parsimony.

Religious people do NOT approach faith by ways of parsimony. And you know it. And you KNOW you changed the meaning of his statement when you asked your loaded question.

One might fairly accuse you of creating a straw man in the process. If I was on the jury, I'd vote to convict.

[AtheistCrusader]

71. Out of curiousity, why the fuck can't you do it?

If you're being honest, why can't you actually quote someone/idea/post for 'discussion' without altering the context and meaning?

Why?

Like every fucking time.

This Group should have the same headline posting rules as LBN. Clear that shit right up.

[trotsky]

28. I would have thought your large, anonymous fan club would have voted a lot more recs for this.

Still sitting at zero. Huh.

[sprinkleeninow]

147. So, it came upon me as I circled 'round our one storey 'townhome' 😅

umpteen times, as a 'practitioner' of the Christian Faith as I know it, am I devoid of critical thinking skills if I also am a full-fledged and card carrying Democrat since 1965?

I said b4, I have no debating skills or experience in such, so I do my level best to absorb point/counterpoint in exchanges.

And sometimes I quit bc it gets heavy.

[DetlefK]

29. Someone who studied theology once explained it to me: It's a different way of thinking.

Science and humanities are different ways of thinking.

In science, we deal with clear definitions, with clear numbers, with clear rules. While this enables us to solve a specific given problem, it puts us in a metaphorical straightjacket, because some kinds of ideas are ad hoc unthinkable and unimaginable.

In the humanities, we don't have clear definitions. Terms and concepts are abstract and vaguely defined. With this kind of thinking, it's very hard to come to a rational conclusion, to solve a given problem. However it's very easy to come up with new ideas and new concepts this way, because there are no constraints holding back your fantasy.



It reminds me of an article I read many years ago. The author detailed how she broke up with her boyfriend. He worked in advertisement and he said this sentence: "I don't believe in definitions."

This is the difference between scientific thinking and spiritual thinking: Whether you accept that an object is defined.








For example: Souls.

We can discuss whether souls exist, however for this discussion to come to a conclusion we first have to find a definition what a soul actually is and how it relates to other things.

If we don't care about coming to a conclusion, then alternatively we may simply use the concept of souls to develop new concepts of souls. E.g. the Ancient Egyptians believed that a person has several kinds of souls.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_concept_of_the_soul

[guillaumeb]

52. It is a different way of thinking.

And because it deals with an unprovable subject, to be a theist requires faith.

[wasupaloopa]

30. I went to Catholic grade school, high school

and college and in each case I was taught critical thinking skills. Also my father taught me to think critically.

I really hate I am better than thou OP’s like this.

[guillaumeb]

53. Agreed.

Condescension and dismissal prove a lot about the one posting, but nothing about the ones posted about.

[Doodley]

112. Surveys have shown that atheists are considered worse than pedophiles in America. Who is being

judgemental? If a presidential candidate announced he/she was an atheist, that would be the end of any chance of winning. I throw this is to show the way that atheists are patronized and dismissed in America. Somehow there is a widespread view that faith and religion is superior. Critical thinking is absent in that.

[trotsky]

56. I'm glad you hate guillaumeb's OP.

It's deceitful because the other person's comment was not directed at all theists, as guillaumeb presented it. He lied.

[Doodley]

109. Are you a Catholic?

[wasupaloopa]

142. I was baptized Catholic but I have chosen Buddhism as my practice. My brother is a Catholic priest

We were taught that science uncovers what God created or put in place and we never lost respect for science. At my college you had to have two more semesters of science than the state university.

We were taught social justice and social awareness.

[Doodley]

145. Good for you. You have chosen Buddhism, but have you rejected Catholicism?

[wasupaloopa]

146. I see Catholicism as more or less a superstition

I never really believed the teachings of Catholicism

But a majority of my classmates are true believers.

[malchickiwick]

31. Critical thinking and theism go together much like oil and water do.

But this is obvious, otherwise you wouldn't have OP'd, right?

[saidsimplesimon]

57. Well, this is a touchy subject, oui?

Opinions and "beliefs" are close cousins, imo.

Many US Jesuit priests are honourable men, with critical thinking skills and an excellent secular education, imo.

[guillaumeb]

68. True, but some apparently prefer to see everything

as an existential battle between their side, the good side, and the side of evil.

Similar to a child preferring to only use one color.

[saidsimplesimon]

74. From a radio show,

"Evil lurks in the mind of men." As a woman, I choose to stand up. All men are not evil, some are cowards and sycophants.

[guillaumeb]

79. Do I have to choose between the two?

Or can I choose both?

[c-rational]

179. And the wise see only one world governed by eternal rules.

[Lordquinton]

69. You're reading with such a literalist interpretation

Your title is also misleading, and a sad attempt to frame the debate before it starts.

[guillaumeb]

76. So actually reading the actual words, and the actual final sentence, is a mistake?

Did you convince yourself yet?

[Lordquinton]

136. Classic Gil

People have said that exact same thing to you many times in the past and you have always said that they are wrong. So Metatron, should we just let you dictate what all words mean? That seems to be what you want.

[ExciteBike66]

86. My belief is that theists have the same critical thinking skills as anyone else...

Any atheist who argued otherwise would have to reckon with the fact that the many atheists are people who were once believers to some extent or another.

Perhaps the better argument for an atheist is to argue that even intelligent theists are "deluded", like Dawkins does. Intelligent people of any type or faith can be "deluded".

As for the quote in the OP, other commenters have noted that the "audience" mentioned is not in fact "all theists", but rather some subset. I have no idea whether this is the case.

[MineralMan]

99. You can see what guillaumeb quoted in context at this link:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1218269030

He should have provided that in his original post, but did not. Clearly, my statement was not made in general about all theists. The original post was about apologetics and those who believe them to be factual. My statement applied only to them. Taken out of context, it was misinterpreted for guillaumeb's purposes.

[guillaumeb]

163. Your "explanation" is contradicted by your own ending.

However, I understand your need for this attempt.

[MineralMan]

167. As the teacher said in "A Christmas Story,"

"You know your blame."

[guillaumeb]

169. Such skills are not encouraged among religious believers, and for obvious reasons.

[5X]

87. see this thread

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210224947

[guillaumeb]

170. Such skills are not encouraged among religious believers, and for obvious reasons.

Explain the meaning as anything but what it says.

[MineralMan]

175. What does that have to do with that poster's link?

Your out-of-context, spammy quote from a post of mine is not at all related to the link that DUer posted. Not in any way.

[Buzz cook]

153. A deity is the ultimate authority figure.

By definition a theist accepts the authority of their deity. As such the pronouncements of the deity supersede evidence derived from any other source.

[Fix The Stupid]

174. Hmmm...let's see...

Virgin Birth?
Rose from the dead?
Walked on water?
Raised lazarus?
Dude got swallowed by a whale and lived inside this whale?
Exorcisms?
Hell?
Praying 5 times a day?
Nodding your head against a stone wall?
Fasting?
Dude rode a horse into heaven?
Global flood kills all except a dude, his family, and 2 of every living creature on earth?
And the dude above got all those animals on one ship?

No no no...theists are fucking brilliant

[guillaumeb]

176. Interesting exhibition of something.

[Voltaire2]

178. There are items on that list that you

believe are literally true.

You might have applied your extensive critical thinking skills before descending into snarkery.

[guillaumeb]

181. Sorry, the overwhelming "something" caused the tiny rational part of my

brain to reflexively reject it.

[Mariana]

182. Gil's legions of fans demand the snarkery, I'm sure.

You know how fickle the crowds can be, so how can he refuse?

[MineralMan]

208. Those legions are illusory, I think.

I've seen little evidence of them.

[Mariana]

209. Maybe so.

But for now, I'll take him at his word that he receives numerous personal messages asking him to continue doing what he is doing, and praising his efforts in this group. It explains a great deal if it's true, I think.

[MineralMan]

210. If those legions are too timid to post in the public forum, then I simply dismiss them.

He who will not speak publicly has no real voice.

[c-rational]

177. Interesting post and question. If you define a theist as someone who sees the rules and does not

act accordingly, then yes, much like many of the Christian right; but that should be made clear from the start.

[guillaumeb]

180. Generally the insult seems to be used to "prove" that theism is evidence

of a lack of critical thinking ability.

[Fix The Stupid]

187. See post 175. There's your proof that theists lack critical thinking skills. n/t

[Angry Dragon]

185. Theists seem to stop looking for answers and only want to find things to support their beliefs

God works in mysterious ways
God's will
God has a plan

Ask them to state more and they have no answers

[guillaumeb]

189. All theists? Some theists?

What of theists who are scientists?

[Angry Dragon]

190. Most..........that would also cover scientists

[sprinkleeninow]

198. There's no scientists that are theists.

That would be

[guillaumeb]

200. That is implied in much of what passes for dialogue here.

The idea that real thinking must reject theism.

[Voltaire2]

206. No, only that if one applies empirical skepticism

as a method for reasoning about what we know, theistic beliefs fail to meet even minimal standards to believe they are true.

If you are claiming that there is a better method for reasoning about what we know, please explain what that is.

If instead you agree that empiricism is the best method we have, except when it comes to your gods, then you would appear to be engaged in special pleading.

[sprinkleeninow]

203. That's in reverse.

I first believed, then looked for expanded explanation.

I need not 'look for things' to support my believing.

My Way of Faith makes 'sense' to me. That's 'to me'.

Redundant 'spiritual' cliches make me feel not well in my spirit.

[Angry Dragon]

204. Are you a theist??

[sprinkleeninow]

205. Yes, I do believe I am.

I'm hesitant to ask why you asked.

[MineralMan]

191. I refer you, and everyone else, to this post:

Last edited Thu Feb 15, 2018, 09:48 PM - Edit history (1)

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=271576

I will not offer any further comment to your out-of-context pasting of two sentences from the OP of a thread I started on February 1. You can find my opinion at the link above, as well as the answer to your question.