Critical thinking

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux

I have not misinterpreted anything

Ahh good.
Then I was not incorrect in my use of the word then, as you had claimed. Thanks for coming around.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Ahh good. Then I was not incorrect in my use of the word then, as you had claimed. Thanks for coming around.

My ability to properly ascertain your meaning of the word myth does not in anyway vindicate the improper use of that word. That, however, is the difference between a critical thinker and a dogmatist. A critical thinker can use critical thought to understand what is being discussed, even if the communication used in such a discussion is sloppy and not at all well thought out. That, in fact, is why critical thinking is so necessary, because so many are so willing to be sloppy in their thinking.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
That, in fact, is why critical thinking is so necessary, because so many are so willing to be sloppy in their thinking.

Agreed. Which is why, perhaps, you may wish to consult a dictionary before constructing an argument based on your misinterpretation of a word. But whatever... carry on then....

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Agreed. Which is why, perhaps, you may wish to consult a dictionary before constructing an argument based on your misinterpretation of a word. But whatever... carry on, then....

Critical thinkers rely upon far more than a dictionary, and are well aware that lexicographers are not concerned with the critical thought behind the use of a word, and simply recording the word as it has come to be used within a culture. If that culture is comfortable with sloppy thinking, a dictionary will handily reflect that. So, by all means, keep thumping that dictionary as if it is your Bible, and...carry on, then...

reply to post by Cosmic.Artifact


I think that to have critical thinking one first needs knowledge. Without knowledge all thought is nothing more then "mental diarrhea". But, I guess on this site people are used to writing things they know nothing about:

- The original Pledge of Allegiance

"I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands- one nation indivisible-with liberty and justice for all."
September 8,1892

- Only in 1954, under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, was the pledge edited, to include the words "under God".

Today only half of the fifty states have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in the classroom. Besides, various court victories for people refusing to make their children recite the "under God" part, in the other 25 States.

reply to post by masqua


sorry masqua I believe I am referring to page 1 of this topic, before you joined in...

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
Critical thinkers rely upon far more than a dictionary, and are well aware that lexicographers are not concerned with the critical thought behind the use of a word, and simply recording the word as it has come to be used within a culture. If that culture is comfortable with sloppy thinking, a dictionary will handily reflect that. So, by all means, keep thumping that dictionary as if it is your Bible, and...carry on, then...

The pretense involved in your feigning intellectualism in order to cover your error is beyond tiresome at this point. If you're unable to make your point without riding off your perception that I used a word incorrectly it says much about your point. Thanks for making it all about me though. Thank you.

reply to post by masqua


this is my first post in this section, and also my first question in this section.

I wonder how many times we see (the posters from the religion and theology section) in here or the last time they have been here ?

could someone possibly be using my profile to follow me around ?

is there a way to lock down my profile from people not in my friends list ? I ask you this here because I have a mod on the line.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

The pretense involved in your feigning intellectualism in order to cover your error is beyond tiresome at this point. If you're unable to make your point without riding off your perception that I used a word incorrectly it says much about your point. Thanks for making it all about me though. Thank you.

Of course, a critical thinker would not ever assume that the critical analysis of a word is about them. Further, all critical thinkers know they are not the center of the universe. However, if you so desperately need validation from others, who am I to invalidate you? You are welcome.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
However, if you so desperately need validation from others, who am I to invalidate you? You are welcome.

Well thanks. I get enough attention on stage. I never expected it would come from someone who wrongly criticized my proper use of the word "myth" and pretended he was some kind of a master of critical thought. Anyway, what was the point you were trying to make that you couldn't make without wrongly criticizing others?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


the understanding of myth and how it translates was quite well defined in my opinion by your original post.

factoring in of course, lack of understanding coming from the inability to use Holistic thinking and only the Linear style, our surroundings make much more sense applying both.

there are inherent problems with linear mode, it is a painstaking process...

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


I don't want to derail this thread, but this answer does work for the OP as well so I will continue a short version.
I was already on road to being rude and for that I apologize. If you would really like to understand where I'm coming from just start thinking about particles and the charges they give off. Think about how everything in the known universe has to give up a part of itself in one form or another to grow.Everything must give something whether it be particles giving off electrons of charge or actual matter to expand.So again in order for anything to grow or expand in any way it gives a part of itself,cells come to mind, plants, animals, humans, EVERYTHING!
It would seem that some cosmic or universal law is at work would it not? What other story comes to mind about a being that claims to live outside time as we know it, giving up a part of himself to gain back certain beings. You see you can't mix critical thinking and bias it just don't work. Through critical thinking I found out some things that I personally believed were just not true(hell comes to mind). At the same time I found out some of the things I believe were in fact truth. Please don't think I'm into religion I'm not there is a vast difference in being religious and spewing a bunch a garbage about how everyone is going to burn in hell vs. Being in contact with your creator and understanding we are all in a process of becoming like him. I do believe that it's possible if you reject your creator that you may be deleted and your energy will have to come back and attach itself to another being or some thing in order to start your growing process again until you embrace your creator and manifest it in your lifetime. Something like that I'm still working it all out myself.
But this much I have learned science is great to understand the surface of things. But it's laughable when it comes to the deep understanding because lines have already been drawn and everyone obeys that principle because they are so brainwashed by the system itself.

Originally posted by CerBeRus666
- Only in 1954, under President Dwight D. Eisenhower, was the pledge edited, to include the words "under God"

not a bad addition in my opinion, if I was around to vote on it surely I would have... just as I did in the overwhelming midterms on Nov 7th.

Today only half of the fifty states have laws that encourage the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance

do you mean today only half of the states do not encourage to recite the pledge ?

I will have to look into this, do you have any facts to support your argument here? if so please post them.

meanwhile I will look at the map from the midterms in black and white (or rather red and blue)

Originally posted by firegoggles
I do believe that it's possible if you reject your creator that you may be deleted and your energy will have to come back and attach itself to another being or some thing in order to start your growing process again until you embrace your creator and manifest it in your lifetime.

What?

You're making more claims without any supporting evidence. I'm motivated by the thought that my beliefs are as truthful and accurate as can be ascertained. Stuff such as "creators", "deletion" and my "energy" involved in a "growing process" until I "embrace my creator" need some sort of proof before I believe such esoteric hullabaloo. You made claims that you knew some sort of reality and you've responded with this unsupported, convoluted tale. At what point will you back up your claims?

Originally posted by Cosmic.Artifact
do you have any facts to support your argument here?

I'm curious -since you made this request- will you back up your claim that the Constitution contains the principles of Protestant christianity? You've been asked to several times already in this thread and have systematically avoided it.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


Oh yea dude your totally right(really sickening sarcastic but right) that last part was just some opinion and not only that it was not very well put.

Look I just wanted you to think about the first part I mentioned. The part abou the giving and receiving of particles and charges. Start with that and a truly open mind and try and look at the things you don't believe in a new light.

As far as the other stuff. Who knows. Even from a religious stand point in Genesis God never said anyone was going to hell. He simply stated that you will die. On the other hand by embracing the manifested creator and receiving his spirit or "charge" he states you will live...FOREEVER. No biggie...right?

reply to post by traditionaldrummer

Well thanks. I get enough attention on stage. I never expected it would come from someone who wrongly criticized my proper use of the word "myth" and pretended he was some kind of a master of critical thought. Anyway, what was the point you were trying to make that you couldn't make without wrongly criticizing others?

You can pout all you want, the point was that the use of the word myth to be equated with falsehood, particularly when using it to dismiss the lamentation that mythology is not allowed in schools, (regardless of the validity of such a lamentation, this was the lamentation), is ironic, and given your command that people think critically, it is tragically ironic that you were so willing to fall prey to sloppy thinking in the name of personal bias, and then pretend to be advocating critical thought. This point, has no doubt eluded you, and will continue to elude you as long as you allow your emotions, and insecurities to dictate how you think. You can be the effect of your emotions, or you can be cause over them. That choice is yours.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


it would be better if you discovered this yourself, just as the way it is intended really...

if you would like to start a educational and non-biased or attacking topic so be it.

this is a very educational and learned topic, I feel however you can not dwelve into it without somehow throwing it off track and changing the subject, then demanding fact to be posted, instead you would rather fight anything that goes against your personal train of thought with round-a-bouts. This state your evidence thing is getting boring quick...

look into William Tyndale, then look into Martin Luther, then look up the Protestants.

reply to post by traditionaldrummer


this of course being my favorite...

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Declaration of Independence (from British Tyranny)

being drafted by the supposed Atheist Thomas Jefferson yet we get he was indeed an atheist from website such as these... www.nobeliefs.com...

just another attempted thievery as I have claimed when I first started in the religion and philosophy section...

yet by those words written above do you seriously believe some of the third party websites ?

Rather than continue addressing individual remarks about the two subjects being discussed under the broad scope of 'Critical Thinking', perhaps it should be a pre-determined FACT that both God and myth may be debated in perpetuity without ever concluding to a definite and final result.

The spiritual realm and the use of myth has existed beyond the historical record in polytheistic forms while monotheism is relatively new in comparison. It was formed in the mind of mankind so far back in time that the first instance of theology is utterly lost to us. We are left only to speculate as to how or why the concepts arose.

In both instances they are a means to educate, whether it's God's Will or Santa Claus we're addressing. It is not so important to assess, through logic, the truth of these two examples. What IS important is what effect they have.