A variable number of occurances that indicates you can't think critically

1. You choose to derive your knowledge solely from the word of other people who do not share the unique perspective you as an individual being possess. Whether they were written thousands of years ago, or from contemporary methods of gathering knowledge.

2. You choose to follow a dogmatic worldview which rejects any other worldview by using rationale from one world view to weigh in the legitimacy of the other worldview, neglecting to remember that your own worldview takes a variety of presumptions that other worldviews have not made. You choose to dictate the criteria of which something should be judged on, whether the criteria comes from an old book that has been translated and manipulated throughout the ages, or the criteria comes from branch of philosophy that doesn't even postulate that anything is right or wrong, true or false, but uses a method to gather data and make a conclusion based solely on that method. It's like trying to have a debate whether a song is better than a movie.

3. You don't fully understand the beliefs you so adamantly defend. Whether you're non-religious or religious.

4. You don't even understand what religion is.

5. You don't even understand what science is.

6. You create a thread attacking the ideologies of another through erroneous means.

7. You think your understanding of everything is correct. The only being that possibly knows everything about everything is god (and google in a couple of years).

8. You need to bring up half-truths, assert possibilities as facts, use straw man tactics and other fallacious means to make yourself seem right.


I hate all of you so much I want to punch you through the monitor.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by SpectreDC]

You're welcome to come try, but an assault upon me WILL lead to your being hooked to machines working hard to make sure you can continue on.

reply to post by SpectreDC

I hate all of you so much I want to punch your through the monitor.

You are just adorable.

Oh my gosh, ATS is turning into Cracked.com! So many lists popping up here lately! The back and forth does get rather tiring, doesn't it?

Originally posted by LiveForever8
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

I hate all of you so much I want to punch your through the monitor.

You are just adorable.

Can you blame my joking mention of rage and minor spelling error? You had two threads made within the past 24 hours having some Christians and Atheists fighting over who is more of an idiot without realizing the fact that they're both idiots. Not generally of course, but certainly those asserting the erroneous claims and generalizations.

Originally posted by angrymomma
Oh my gosh, ATS is turning into Cracked.com! So many lists popping up here lately! The back and forth does get rather tiring, doesn't it?

Two sides who assert ideologies they don't fully understand, both generalizing the other crowd, both making erroneous claims, and both refusing to backpedal on a few chosen assumptions to try to reconcile the view points being debated on?

It's isn't tiring. It's slightly amusing, like watching two monkeys throwing # at one another. Then it starts to smell really bad. Then when you get away from it you realize some got on you and you're pissed the # off.

Originally posted by SpectreDC
1. You choose to derive your knowledge solely from the word of other people who do not share the unique perspective you as an individual being possess. Whether they were written thousands of years ago, or from contemporary methods of gathering knowledge.

2. You choose to follow a dogmatic worldview which rejects any other worldview by using rationale from one world view to weigh in the legitimacy of the other worldview, neglecting to remember that your own worldview takes a variety of presumptions that other worldviews have not made. You choose to dictate the criteria of which something should be judged on, whether the criteria comes from an old book that has been translated and manipulated throughout the ages, or the criteria comes from branch of philosophy that doesn't even postulate that anything is right or wrong, true or false, but uses a method to gather data and make a conclusion based solely on that method. It's like trying to have a debate whether a song is better than a movie.

3. You don't fully understand the beliefs you so adamantly defend. Whether you're non-religious or religious.

4. You don't even understand what religion is.

5. You don't even understand what science is.

6. You create a thread attacking the ideologies of another through erroneous means.

7. You think your understanding of everything is correct. The only being that possibly knows everything about everything is god (and google in a couple of years).

8. You need to bring up half-truths, assert possibilities as facts, use straw man tactics and other fallacious means to make yourself seem right.


I hate all of you so much I want to punch you through the monitor.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by SpectreDC]

Someone got butt hurt in a thread I am guessing? You should take comfort knowing that just because a person "wins" an argument does not mean they are right, but you have to be a critical thinker to see that...

[edit on 31-3-2010 by SmokeandShadow]

Originally posted by SmokeandShadow



Someone got butt hurt in a thread I am guessing? You should take comfort knowing that just because a person "wins" an argument does not mean they are right, but you have to be a critical thinker to see that...

[edit on 31-3-2010 by SmokeandShadow]

No, I got butt hurt that twiddle dee and twiddle dum were having relationship issues and resorted to slapping each other with rotting fish.

reply to post by SpectreDC


"Then when you get away from it you realize some got on you and you're pissed the # off."

Pure gold.

I believe there was a moratorium not too long ago placed on this very thing that stemmed from political bickering- multiple threads/counter-threads and such.

Originally posted by SpectreDC
1. You choose to derive your knowledge solely from the word of other people who do not share the unique perspective you as an individual being possess. Whether they were written thousands of years ago, or from contemporary methods of gathering knowledge.

Because I don't have time to waste absorbing a bunch of religious nonsense. I have a life and I intend to live it. I recommend that you learn how to do the same.

2. You choose to follow a dogmatic worldview which rejects any other worldview by using rationale from one world view to weigh in the legitimacy of the other worldview, neglecting to remember that your own worldview takes a variety of presumptions that other worldviews have not made. You choose to dictate the criteria of which something should be judged on, whether the criteria comes from an old book that has been translated and manipulated throughout the ages, or the criteria comes from branch of philosophy that doesn't even postulate that anything is right or wrong, true or false, but uses a method to gather data and make a conclusion based solely on that method. It's like trying to have a debate whether a song is better than a movie.

I don't have any dogmatic worldviews, I simply am of the opinion that god doesn't exist, and even if he did, my answer would be that he needs to mind his own damn business.

3. You don't fully understand the beliefs you so adamantly defend. Whether you're non-religious or religious.

I don't have an extensive set of detailed rules and regulations by which I lead my life, aside from the laws of the United States of America, and I'm even starting to re-think them in light of current developments.

4. You don't even understand what religion is.

I understand it well enough for my own purposes. I'm not here to please you. I'm pretty sure I couldn't, because you're just a poopy sourpuss.

5. You don't even understand what science is.

Science is not perfect, but it's right more often than it is wrong. Can your religion say that? NO!!!

6. You create a thread attacking the ideologies of another through erroneous means.

Why should I? You've already done it for me.

7. You think your understanding of everything is correct. The only being that possibly knows everything about everything is god (and google in a couple of years).

Then god knows that I'll leave him alone if he leaves me alone.

8. You need to bring up half-truths, assert possibilities as facts, use straw man tactics and other fallacious means to make yourself seem right.

You're just so lovable, I want to hug you and feed you and call you George!!!

I hate all of you so much I want to punch you through the monitor.

My monitor is a flatscreen, so if you were able to punch me through it, that would mean that you are as flat as your arguments. Have a nice life, drive carefully and do try to stop spitting on people...

[edit on 31-3-2010 by SpectreDC]

Originally posted by SpectreDC

Originally posted by LiveForever8
reply to post by SpectreDC

 

I hate all of you so much I want to punch your through the monitor.

You are just adorable.

Can you blame my joking mention of rage and minor spelling error? You had two threads made within the past 24 hours having some Christians and Atheists fighting over who is more of an idiot without realizing the fact that they're both idiots. Not generally of course, but certainly those asserting the erroneous claims and generalizations.

That is a very good point.
You sir are correct.

They are both idiots.

I am glad you do not want to punch me. Cuz I am Cool like That!

reply to post by SpectreDC

7. You think your understanding of everything is correct. The only being that possibly knows everything about everything is god (and google in a couple of years).

It's debatable whether or not a higher consciousness or "god" even exists and even more uncertain whether said being would hold all the knowledge in the cosmos.

I don't know anyone who claims to have ALL knowledge.

I know religious minded folks who claim their religious beliefs are absolute truth despite conflicting evidence.

I know scientific minded people who weigh 'truth', question all their beliefs and reach conclusions based on logic and the evidence.

I know religious folks who separate faith from knowledge, who believe the scientific conclusions that are supported by evidence while also holding onto their faith that a higher power exists.

There are a lot of different beliefs and no one has all the answers, the problem comes when people assert things without evidence. If someone asserts something as true and that conclusion is based on the evidence I fail to see how anyone can be angry about the conclusion.

Just calm down, this is ATS, these kinds of debates are supposed to go on, life wouldn't be any fun without them

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Titen-Sxull]

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull


It's debatable whether or not a higher consciousness or "god" even exists and even more uncertain whether said being would hold all the knowledge in the cosmos.

No he means hypothetically not literally.

By pure definitions of words alone, the word "God" is defined as such and such.

He meant hypothetically.

I doubt he sought to debate the existence of God, but rather use the term in a statement that indicated it was purely context.

Originally posted by warpcrafter

Originally posted by SpectreDC
1. You choose to derive your knowledge solely from the word of other people who do not share the unique perspective you as an individual being possess. Whether they were written thousands of years ago, or from contemporary methods of gathering knowledge.

Because I don't have time to waste absorbing a bunch of religious nonsense. I have a life and I intend to live it. I recommend that you learn how to do the same.

2. You choose to follow a dogmatic worldview which rejects any other worldview by using rationale from one world view to weigh in the legitimacy of the other worldview, neglecting to remember that your own worldview takes a variety of presumptions that other worldviews have not made. You choose to dictate the criteria of which something should be judged on, whether the criteria comes from an old book that has been translated and manipulated throughout the ages, or the criteria comes from branch of philosophy that doesn't even postulate that anything is right or wrong, true or false, but uses a method to gather data and make a conclusion based solely on that method. It's like trying to have a debate whether a song is better than a movie.

I don't have any dogmatic worldviews, I simply am of the opinion that god doesn't exist, and even if he did, my answer would be that he needs to mind his own damn business.

3. You don't fully understand the beliefs you so adamantly defend. Whether you're non-religious or religious.

I don't have an extensive set of detailed rules and regulations by which I lead my life, aside from the laws of the United States of America, and I'm even starting to re-think them in light of current developments.

4. You don't even understand what religion is.

I understand it well enough for my own purposes. I'm not here to please you. I'm pretty sure I couldn't, because you're just a poopy sourpuss.

5. You don't even understand what science is.

Science is not perfect, but it's right more often than it is wrong. Can your religion say that? NO!!!

6. You create a thread attacking the ideologies of another through erroneous means.

Why should I? You've already done it for me.

7. You think your understanding of everything is correct. The only being that possibly knows everything about everything is god (and google in a couple of years).

Then god knows that I'll leave him alone if he leaves me alone.

8. You need to bring up half-truths, assert possibilities as facts, use straw man tactics and other fallacious means to make yourself seem right.

You're just so lovable, I want to hug you and feed you and call you George!!!

I hate all of you so much I want to punch you through the monitor.

My monitor is a flatscreen, so if you were able to punch me through it, that would mean that you are as flat as your arguments. Have a nice life, drive carefully and do try to stop spitting on people...

[edit on 31-3-2010 by SpectreDC]

And here ladies and gentlemen is an example of ignoramus postes, a specimen that is in fact part of the crowd of people this thread was directed towards. You can notice from the fine example this specimen graciously granted for our observation their inability to understand the actual purpose behind this post.

For example, instances in which the specimen tries to label my belief system when in fact not a bit of it is present within this very thread! Some researchers believe it may be a case of clairvoyance; at least, they THINK they're clairvoyant. In truth their revelations prove to be fallacious at best and absolutely retarded at worst.

Furthermore, the specimen displays to us in a claim that he is not dogmatic, and yet later on in his post, he makes claims based off of a dogmatic point of view!

Truly, a brilliant, graceful, and sometimes hilarious creature known as ignoramus postes can be.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by SpectreDC]

[edit on 31-3-2010 by SpectreDC]

reply to post by muzzleflash


Well not every god is all-knowing, the concept does not automatically denote an all-knowing nature. There were lot's of ancient gods who were clueless

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
reply to post by muzzleflash

 

Well not every god is all-knowing, the concept does not automatically denote an all-knowing nature. There were lot's of ancient gods who were clueless

I understand your previous points and as the poster above me said, I did mean it in a purely hypothetical state. This thread is not for me to debate on my beliefs. This threads purpose is to call out the stupidity that persists in this section by people who in truth don't know what the hell they are talking about most of the time. I've seen both the spiritual and scientific crowd make absolutely erroneous statements and claims about one another and even sometimes about their own beliefs.

Open discussion is great. But when the discussion is clogged up with so much bull# that is perpetuated by those who exist on the extremes of their respective polarity, it destroys the process. Open discussion becomes pointless. When people can't follow the necessary decorum that continues the discussion to a conclusion, you need to ignore all decorum and berate the little turds responsible by calling them out on it.

Calling the mods is fine but I enjoy a good tongue lashing and mind smashing.

I just had to LMAO at this thread
its quite amusing to say the least

as far as your deductions go

Peter Piper picked a peck of pickled pepper
If Peter Piper hadn't picked a peck of pickled pepper
then Peter Piper would have picked the peck of pickled pepper anyway
regardless of who wants to punch Peter Piper in the face.
But had Peter Piper punched back instead of picking
his pickled pepper then Peter Piper may have noticed
that his pickled pepper had been stolen from
Peter Piper's feet. Then Peter Piper was really
Peter Piper pissed cuz Peter Piper had been duped
into reading this Peter Piper thread that didn't amount
to a hill of beans. Oh but what, the Jack and the beanstalk
is another story

reply to post by boondock-saint


I disagree, I think I am personally sick of the Atheist vs Religious war.

I am glad someone is posting a thread calling out both for their fallacies.

If he didn't do it, I would have made one eventually probably.

There needs to be a force counteracting those 'other two forces'.

Everyone needs to grow up on ATS today, just because there are two threads going on about Religion vs. Non-Religion (which yes, I have taken a part in) Doesn't mean a third thread needs to be put in the mix just to rant about how angry you are.

This may be from my "supposed" strawman argument... if it is, don't make a thread just because you are offended by me. If it isn't due to me so be it, but a previous poster commented about one of my arguments much like the way you are discussing it... I will now go back and check who it was who commented to me.

Edit to add it wasn't the OP he said I was doing a strawman argument.

[edit on 31-3-2010 by Phlynx]