₦airaland Forum

Negro_Ntns:
Huxley,

How confident are you that these claims are attributable directly to Jesus and he decreed these sentences, as opposed to evaluations of your sources and their credibility for cosmic truthfulness free of bias?

Very very very confident if the bible is anything to go by.

Surely, Jesus gave the ship all his blessing.

Go ask them to sell these cars and give the money to the poor, ie, the church members whom they have fleeced.

How come non of you are addressing the point I made above? You guys seem to be unable to defend you man. How bizarre!

Here are some of the views that support my assertion:

1)  He introduced the concept of hell, a particularly vile place for everlasting punishment.

2)  Had particularly obnoxious family values - calling of people to hate their family members and abandon their families

3)  He called on people to make no plans for tomorrow.

4) He call for people to not self-defend themself against aggressors, but instead give to aggressors

5)  He called on people to self-mutilate to avoid sinning, thus showing that he did not know how "sinning" originate.  He should have called on people to cut off their heads instead since sinning starts as a thought in the brain.

6)  He was particularly opposed to his followers fraternising with non-Jews, describing one such as a dog.

7)  He called on his enemies to be brought forth and slain before him.

8-)  He said " I did not come to bring peace BUT a sword"

9)  He was particularly uncharitable to women facing divorce from their men, describing them as commiting adultery and putting a bar against other men from marrying such women.

10) Was particularly materialistic, prefering that an expensive perfum be used on him, rather having it sold and the money given to the poor.


And this is the view one get from reading the new testament. I have not even mentioned the actions of Jesus in the old testament.


Does anyone who espouses such vile views deserve to be respected and renerated?

Am glad to see that you have done some more research on CT. It has been an active area for many years (perhaps about 100 years) although only recently is it becoming more popular.

Check out this excerpt from the book by Alec Fisher here: http://assets.cambridge.org/052100/9847/sample/0521009847ws.pdf


Hvae just read most of it and agree with most of what he says, Wish I had the whole book.

Pastor AIO:
Every body thinks more critically about some things than about other things. We are all filled with urges that drive our behaviour. Each individual is driven slightly differently by his urges and that's what makes us individuals. When you feel an intense urge about an issue then that urge subjugates all the others and one will quite likely think more critically about how to satisfy the greatest urge.

For instance there are certain people drawn to discovering religious truth. These people will think more critically about religion. On the other hand some other people just see their religion as a form of social Identity. 'I'm a catholic, what are you?'. Such people will not peruse religion too deeply, but if their religion is questioned or attacked, what that becomes is actually an attack on the person's identity. That person will react the way anyone would if his person was being attacked. That doesn't mean that they are incapable of thinking critically. It just means that religious Truth matters less to them, and personal dignity matters more. Put the same man in a laboratory and he might prove to be the smartest scientist in the country. Obviously his drive to find scientific truth makes him more critical in that field, more likely to appraise and reappraise his experiences etc.

Supposing such a scientist were studying the cosmos and they were to discover a fact about the cosmos which is at odds with their religious view - such as was the case with Galileo. What should he do?

1) Deny that he has made such a discovery because it conflicts with his religions view?

2) Abandon the view from his religion as they are not in agreement with observed objective facts?

3) Re-interpret the religious view to make it agree with the facts?


One of the things you would learn in CT training are the various logical fallacies. Logical fallacies are a description of certain types of faulty reason and the range from adhominen, argument from person experience, etc, etc, etc. The arguments from personal experience deals with the issue of personal urges and emotions and how one should control or avoid making decision (where objectivity is required) on urges or emotions.

Pastor AIO:
Huxley, let's put it this way: What is the scientific basis of the following statements . . .


Critical Thinking is a subject apparently taught in universities which has as it's primary basis and principles a description of the mind as set out above by Dr. Linda Elder, and Dr. Richard Paul. It divides the mind into Thinking, Feeling and Desire.
http://www.criticalthinking.org/files/SAM-TheHumanMind1.pdf

I remain unconvinced that anything found in the link above about the subject of CT has any basis in Scientific facts.

Thinking Critically on the other hand is something we all do everyday to varying degrees. The more subtlety there is in our perceptions when thinking, the more critical will be our thinking.

Like I said above CT draws from a wide range of fields, including linguistics, cognitive sciences, logics, mathematics, philosophy. CT is essentially an attitude of mind, a style of thinking and making decisions that utilises the best available facts about the nature of reality. In some places, I have seen it defined as - Thinking about thinking or mindful thinking ( I don't like this definitions as I think there are too narrow)

Why don't you do a google search to see what other people think about it. Over reliance on one source may be dangerous.


I suppose the stuff in the manual they present is their attempt at looking at what the cognitive sciences say about thinking and the mind. Frankly, If I wanted to read anything about cognitve sciences/mind, I would not use that manual. Maybe they have a different (or better) treatment in one of their many books on the subject.


Now, what would a fair evaluation of the usefulness of CT be? Would that constitute ONLY focusing of eaxmining what one source had to say about the subject? Would it be wise to see what others have to say?

tonye-t:
@Okija_juju
if i say i believe in the true existence of a creator invisible, then i must have heard, seen or perceived it from somewhere, which is for me nothing more than the HOLY BIBLE

even athiest believe something, what if you may ask? -"they believe that God does not exist"

@pastor AIO,

brother with all due respect,if you choose not to take side, then u aint welcomed here

@Huxley,

now back to your questions,yeah at least Huxley you have accepted that at least a document should be used to back our claims, because if we claim we believe something then we must have seen, listened/heard, smelt or perceived it from somewhere that would have been documented, aint it?

if yes, then, lets see things from this perspective first

1. i was born black, from black parents, i grew up and saw my skin dark, my parents dark so to say,and understood the color representation of the word black from a DOCUMENT(s), with all this i have come to believe with no doubt that i am a black,isnt it?

good>>>>>

now, again, when we were all born, we came out, grew up and came to understand what food meant, now you and i eat because we have both come to believe (from eating, smelling, perceiving, experience) that food gives life or at least keeps us alive, isnt it?

also>>>>

when you were born, your momma only had to see your genital to know that you are a male, you grew up, saw for yourself how male genitals differed from the females, this you did with your eyes, and perception , inotherwords, you have come to believe for yourself that you are a male

now all this you accepted, irrespective of the fact that others have seen, heard or perceived for themselves, isnt it

with this , i put it to say that

you and I were born, and we came out to hear and see people say that a force, creator, influence, spirit, object, alegory somewhere created the universe, with this and our personal experience we should accept that a god God exist somewhere



disproof me if you can

What sort of inarticulate non-sense it this? I asked several questions which you have avoided. Did I insinuate anywhere that a god must have a document? I asked?

1) what makes you believe that the bible is the word of god? How about other books that make the same claim?


You have not answered this question. What a clown and devious person you seem to be.

Pastor AIO:
I hope you don't mind but I'm going to ignore all of what you said above, despite finding it interesting and wanting continue down that line, cos I consider it a red herring. Perhaps we can do it on another thread.

I agree, lets talk about CT.

Pastor AIO:
Hey, wait a minute. Lampooning critical thinking?! We are conflating two different things. There's Critical thinking, let's call it just CT, which is a system and methodology for considering issues that is (you claim) taught in universities and divides[b] cognitive processes into Thinking, Feeling, and Desire[/b]. Then there is just plain simple Thinking Critically which man has always done from the dawn of time way before there was such a university subject or even the subject of Logic. Man has always thought critically to varying degrees.

What is the difference between Critical Thinking (CT) and Thinking Critically (TC)?

Pastor AIO:
Yes, I'm lampooning CT. I am saying, quite unequivocally, that CT is a Quack subject. It has no basis in the science of how the mind works and it's premises are superficial. That is the conclusion that I've come to after thinking critically about CT.
No, I did not use any of the methods that are found in the links of CT that you gave me. I just thought about the matters you presented to a certain critical level.


I asked you quite simply, WHAT IS THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF CT? Vaccinations have their basis in the science of Immunology. Is there anything in neuroscience that suggests that cognitive processes can be partitioned the way it has been in CT? I put it to you again that CT is a quack science.

Much of thinking lies in the ability to make distinctions. The more critically one thinks, the more subtle distinctions one can make. There is a whole range from total dumbass who sees things as black and white to super intelligent that perceives all the subtle shades of grey and how each one applies differently.

CT is formal, systematised and methodical thinking that is aim at approaching problems with the best available and rational tools available to humankind. It draws from fields such as mathematics and logics, cognitive sciences and philosophy, linguistics and the sciences.


Obviously, thinking is nothing new to humans, but there is good thinking and there is bad thing. The questions is - Why are we, humans, so prone to bad thinking? What are the barriers to good thinking? This is what subjects like CT are attempting to address, by drawing from the fileds of the cognitive sciences, logic philosophy, linguistics, etc.

There reason is has been abstrated into a separate subject is because no other courses were available that could systematically delve into the deeps of logics, cognitive sciences, linguistics, philosophy, etc.

tonye-t:
yeah i put it to you now that a personality created this world and av got the[b] bible [/b]to proof it

if you say no, then bro you should have a written proof to back your claim aint it?

Ok, let me say I am skeptical about your claim about this god and his deeds. Would you be in a position to enlighten me as how:

1) You came to know that he (god) created the universe

2) When he did it?

3) Why you think the bible offers proof that it was god who did it. Why do you consider the bible the world of god? Have you consider that his word might actually be The Egyptian book of the Dead, or the Verdas, or the Koran, or any of the holy books of the thousands of religions some extinct, some still with us?

tonye-t:
beautiful! now how do you know the world wasnt created by something

Well the burden of proof lies with you, since you are making the positive claim. Supposing I were to say "There is a big yellow zombie sitting on your living room" Would you believe that? Who owns the burden of proof in the zombie case?

tonye-t:
Thank goodness you are here, now lets talk

the supposed creator of the Heavens and earth and every existing life!

How do you know a god created the universe? When did he create it all?

benedictac:
I am not a fool coz it is only a fool that believe God doesnt exist.

Ps 14:1 ¶ The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works; There is none that doeth good.

I am sure you will burn in hell for saying the above.    This is what Jesus said in Matthew 5: 22:

But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.


Now, how do you feel about calling people who do not believe in god fools?

tonye-t:
Do you believe God exist?

Which god are you talking about?

Pastor AIO:
In the sense that you are happy to have your name associated with it and you are happy to be identified with it.

I am happy to recommend a book even if I totally disagree with it. Like I've said many times before, I am always interested in various opinions. I could recommend a book to you for no other reason than to see what you think of it.

With you however I get the feeling that you are a bit evangelical with your postings, like you want to use them to bring about a change in people's opinions.

Well my main reason is to stimulate thinking. While I would like people to have a change of heart, that is the least of my objectives.

Pastor AIO:
It is one thing to give credit where it is due and it is quite another thing for one to discard one's native intelligence in order to kowtow to Authorities.  That you have thus far contributed nothing to human civilisation does not mean that you are incapable of doing so or that you cannot have your valid opinion about various issues.  It is your reluctance to present your own personal insights on account of the fact that others have made 'greater' contributions that I find worrisome and leads me to say that you've given them too much credit.

Is is important to know when it is appropriate to use authorities. Supposing you where a defendant in a case where it is important to present some biological forensic evidence, say about DNA. You have some basic knowledge of DNA and crucially you are aware that there are experts in this field, with years of experience of forensic analysis, DNA and presenting evidence in a court of law. What do you do?

1) Do ignore the services of such experts and decide to do all the work by yourself and present it in courts?

2) Do you hire one such experts and work with him to defend your case?

3) Having hire hire, would you immediately feel a strong sense of low self-esteem with respect to your expert since he is clearly an authority on the subject?

Pastor AIO:
If you don't see how refusing to cultivate your own opinion on account of thinking that others are greater than you is related to Low Self Esteem then I don't know what argument I can use to convince you.  In my case, even at school I always challenged authority and I had a healthy opinion of my own native intelligence.

I have issues with your very clumsy premise, namely that withhold a personal opinion is tantamount to low self esteem. Low self esteem has many precursors, the greatest of which is a persistent bad image of one's self, which could create a feedback loop, which further depresses the self-image. Ignorance of a subjects, by itself is rarely the cause of low self esteem otherwise everybody would be suffering from low self esteem as nobody knows all there is to know about everything.

How much does Stephen Hawkins know about composing music, for example? Could he offer an intelleigent opinion about the circuitry of neuron in the brain? Should he suffer from low self esteem because he may not have opnions on this subject?

Should all currently practicing mathematicans feel a sense of low self esteem because their lives are graced with the work of John Nash, who is probably one of the greatest living mathematician? If not, why not?


Your arguments are simply too crude and is unbecoming of a man of you learning.


What is your own personal opinion about the following?

1) String Theory
2) The idea that the universe is expanding

It is all very well to have ideas and opinion, but how would you know your ideas describe the true nature of reality?

Pastor AIO:
Tell me, when you read your 'philosohers of the mind', as you read, do you evaluate what they are saying or do you just think, " the author who is a very clever guy says so therefore it must be true".  In other words are you capable of thinking critically or not.

Did I imply anywhere that I accept ALL their ideas as dogma? What I said was that this is a very difficult subject and that many thinkers from time immemorial have been thinking about it. And that in venturing into this, it helps to know what these other past and current ideas are.

Why did I not just present one of the ideas from the books I have read as my own? If I had done that, would you have been any the wisers? Not only would that have been dishonest, I happen to be aware of the pitfalls of some of this ideas.

In other words are you capable of thinking critically or not

Are you asking this in gest? I thought you are the one lampooning critical thinking?

Pastor AIO:
I am happy to have my thoughts and ideas reviewed and criticised by experts and even by fellow contributors to this forum, ati omo ati eru ('and freeborn child and slave', cos yoruba says that it is the same way we give birth to the free that we give birth to slaves). 
[size=17pt]But all this is a terrible distraction isn't it?[/size]

We need to get back to the true subject of this thread which is Critical Thinking. I've asked you what is the scientific basis of critical thinking and I am stilling waiting for my answer.  I'll restate my question:

I did pose a conundrum about evaluating various courses of action if you were faced with a medical situation. You seem to exercise really good critical thinking in that case. I did go further to ask that if there was a scientific basis to the process of thinking in evaluating the options you presented.

Now, are you suggesting that what you did in evaluating the various options was NOT CT? If it was not CT, what were you really engaged in then? Do you think some people are better at making such decision than others?

Pastor AIO:
Huxley, please before we go any further tell me, Is this your opinion? Are you endorsing this? Or are you just putting it up here to invite discussion?

Allow me to turn the question round to you. Say you were reading a book on some philosophical issue and you found that in the generall sense, the book hits the mark and deals with the issue fairly and, from your point of view, correctly. Does that mean that you endorse every minor or substantial issue in the book? If you don't, could you still recommend the book to others?

By the way, in what sense do you use the word "endorse" here?

Overview

In this chapter, we will examine the remarkable parallels between the propagation methods of some biological systems and the strategies of religion.


A Thought Experiment


Imagine this scenario: You have a serious conversation with a deeply Christian friend. Your friend is intelligent, well educated and knowledgeable. You agree to record the session. The topic is Islam. During the session, you discuss that Mohammed was a self-appointed prophet and that he claimed he talked to Allah and angels. He wrote a book that he claimed is infallible,
and he flew from Jerusalem to heaven on a horse. During the conversation, you agree that Mohammed was probably delusional to think he could talk to god. You agree that the Koran was
clearly written by Mohammed and not by Allah. It is ludicrous for him to claim that he is the last prophet and that all others are false. Neither you nor your friend can believe that he flew to heaven, let alone on a horse. It all sounds too crazy, and you both agree it is difficult to see how someone could believe such a religion. At the end of the conversation, you say that Muslims did not choose their religion; they were born into it. Anyone who was exposed to both Christianity and Islam would see that Christianity is the true religion. Over the next few days, you transcribe the recording onto paper. Then you change all references to Mohammed and make them Jesus. Now the document reads something like this:

During the conversation, you both agree that Jesus was probably delusional to think he could talk to Jehovah. The Bible was clearly written by men and not by Jehovah. You both
agree it is ludicrous for Jesus to claim that he is the last prophet and that all later ones are false. Neither of you can believe that he rose from the dead, nor flew to heaven. It all sounds too
crazy, and it is difficult to see how someone could believe such a religion. At the end of the conversation, you both agree that Christians did not choose their religion; they were born into
it. Anyone who was exposed to both Christianity and Islam would see that Islam is the true religion.

Now, tell your friend, “I made a transcript of our conversation about Islam and would like to go over it with you.” As you read it, watch her reaction. How does she respond to each statement? How soon does she get defensive? How quickly does she start making elaborate arguments that have no more factual basis than the first conversation? If you persist in this
line of parallel reasoning, how long before she gets angry or breaks off the conversation? Could this conversation damage your friendship? You can do the same experiment with other prophetic religions. For example, substitute Joseph Smith for Mormonism or Moses for Judaism. This experiment illustrates the god virus at work. It infects the brain and alters critical thinking skills. It leaves the skill intact for other religions but disables critical thinking about one’s own religion. Keep this thought experiment in mind as we explore the virus-like behavior of religion in
individuals and in society.

Religious Conversion Syndrome

Have you ever observed somebody go through a religious conversion? The person seems perfectly reasonable to you and has no particular concern for religion. Then a parent, friend or child dies or he gets a serious illness or is involved in a car accident. In just a matter of weeks, he seeks out and finds the answers to all of life’s questions and starts studying and spouting
all sorts of doctrine. During such a window of vulnerability, religion can commandeer a person’s brain. In many cases, the person will join some kind of fundamentalist or charismatic group.
An associate of mine recently lost his father to cancer. Before this family trauma, he was a non-religious person. After his father’s death, he got a severe case of religion that changed his personality dramatically. [url=http://www.thegodvirus.net/images/The%20GodVirus_Intro_1_2.pdf] Continue here [/url]

Samtaraba:
The Bible is a holy book and its contents can not be understood without God's divine help.
My brother you need to go to God in prayer for divine wisdom. I shall remember you in my daily prayer for
the Lord to forgive you.Below is my number in case you care to call me: 2348024518333


Remain blessed.

Stick it up your God's arse.

Bastage:
But you do believe that God exists, right?

So why are you worried about what atheists think?

Are you worried that they have a better argument?


This is what I can never understand about Christians (even though I consider myself to be one): they worry about what atheists think, pursue them with what almost seems a hatred at times and treat all of their issues with contempt - even those that are founded within logic.

OP: My advice to you is to concentrate on your own faith. Let others concentrate on thiers. You're just as much of a worrier as they are.

Are you a cultural christians or a believing-in-the-dogma and practising christian? What type of christian are you and what do you believe in?

davidylan:
lol like what argument exactly? Evolution?
You people flatter yourselves. I've consistently noticed the trend, atheists seem to consider themselves smarter than everyone else . . . this forum is a microcosm of the fact that it is not the case.

As if you know anything at all about evolution. We did establish that as far as scientific biologcal evolution is concerned, you are an ignoramus, didn't we?

davidylan:
Funny enough if you notice, 95% of the christians on this site have NEVER bothered what atheists think.
99% of the atheist vs christianity threads have been opened by atheists, i can only remember one opened by olaadegbu.

And you say we worry and pursue you? You give yourself way too much credit my friend.

Hatred? The sheer venom and scorn that drips from the posts of duduspace, mazaje, bastage, huxley and co whenever they talk about christianity and the bible should be enough to tell you where the hate comes from. We dont treat your issues with contempt, we really dont care except when you forcefully intrude into christian threads since no one is listening to you on the ones you open.

Hatred? Yes, we hated falsehood, lies, intellectual dishonesty, gullibility, superstition, irrationality, etc, etc. But, we don't hate the person. We hate the mindset, a mindset that is capable of dragging the world back into the dark ages. That is what we hate.

5 These twelve Jesus sent out with the following instructions: "Do not go among the Gentiles or enter any town of the Samaritans. 6 Go rather to the lost sheep of Israel. 7 As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy,[b]drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give. 9 Do not take along any gold or silver or copper in your belts; 10take no bag for the journey, or extra tunic, or sandals or a staff; for the worker is worth his keep. (Matthew 10:5-10)

"I was sent only to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew 15:24)


QED

javalove:
Davidylan !!!!!

@Huxely
Tnx for ur reply

Don't expect Davidylan to answer this. He knows where is is going to tie himself up in knots and steers clear of such questions.


But very good question and many thanks for asking. I await his answer though.

I think they are as they are god's chosen people and have a different dispensation than the rest of us non-jews.

Pastor AIO:
I arrived at that cos you said:
and also:
This illustrates quite well what we are talking about.  That I've arrived at my conclusion of your giving them too much credit from these two statements that you've made.  One, that you're daunted by the fact that the likes of Descartes have failed, and 2, that if 'philosophers of the mind' can't resolve it, how much less you and me, as if to suggest that you and me are less than these philosophers of mind.
While two instances of apparent low self esteem is not enough to draw a character profile, the human brain cannot help but make conjectures with whatever information is available to it.  Yet the more information that is available the better informed the conjecture will be and the more Critical and hopefully accurate it will be.  Hence the need to take into account the subtleties surrounding any issue.

In fact, to be fair, lets give credit where credit is due.   Compare to most of these innovators ( the great scientist and pholosphers of the past like Faraday,  Archimedes, Descartes, Laviossier, Priestly,  Darwin, Einstein, Newton, Boyle, etc, etc)  I have constributed nothing to human civilisation.   Have you?   Show me your grand theories or contribution.

These people deserve respect and credit for their innovations and contribution to civilisation.   Yes, it is only fair that credit is given where it is due.


But how does this relate to low self-esteem?


I take it that you have attended establishments of learning (maybe up to university level) and have been taught and mentored by consummate professional intructors and teachers.  People who are 1st class in their field.  Now, as a student starting out to learn in this field, did you have low self-esteem vis-a-vis your instructors/teachers/mentors?

I am not a professional philosopher of the mind, nor a cognitive scientist, but I have a developing interest in these areas and see the amount of work that have been carried out before as quite impressive.  Some of it may be leading down blind alleys, others may not.  Anyone starting out in this field would have a daunting task appreciating this volume of work.

Now, are you a professional philosopher or cognitive scientist?   Can you show me your body of work that puts you on a par with some of the contemporary workers in this field?   If you have not yet got a body of work published or documented, do you mind having such work reviewed by experts in the field should you manage to document them?

In fact, do you think that the process of peer-review and replicability, built-in with contemporary scientific practice is a worthwhile process and would you submit your work to be evaluated under this scheme?