Has Intelligent Thought Become A Lost Art at ATS ?

reply to post by iwilliam


I haven't misrepresented your answer at all. What I recounted is a direct quote from your post right here. It's the very last sentence of your reply to question 6, and it does fairly sum up your opinion on the validity of that question.

You think that atheism, the lack-of-belief, is a religion which subsists on faith; you also think that questioning Christianity through atheism is a pseudo-intellectual pursuit. Both of these stances are patently false.

Atheism is not "having faith that God does not exist" as you seem to believe; it is lacking all belief, or faith, in a higher power, a set of spiritual rituals and ceremonies, and alternate essences (like spirit, soul, etc). Since you clearly demonstrate a biased opinion of atheism, I can safely assume your opinions about the questions atheists pose will also be similarly biased. You do not fail to disappoint.

Now then, the reason that the question of how many women went is important is because the Bible is supposed to be the infallible, divinely inspired word of God. If God cannot count, and if God tells a different story to different people than it makes God an unreliable witness. In a court of law this is akin to lying, and the testimony of an exposed liar is discarded.

The Bible is a flawed document; whatever pseudo-intellectual babble you dress it up in: it is inconsistent, contradictory, historically and scientifically inaccurate, and should not be taken as anything more than religious myth, superstition, and a product of a bygone age.

Sorry if my direct quotations of your work offend you. If you don't want people quoting exactly what you say, then don't say it.

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by charles1952


The real question is: where do my bluebirds fly?

Second.

~ Wandering Scribe

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by Deetermined

 

Sorry to jump in on this one, but, if you're looking for inaccuracy in the Bible, it's not hard to find. Consider some of these...

After Jesus has cursed the fig tree, does it wither immediately, or overnight?
- Mark 11:13-23 says the tree withered overnight
- Matthew 21:19-20 says the tree withered while the disciples watched

How many demon-possessed men emerge from tombs in Gergesenes?
- Matthew 8:28 says two possessed men emerged
- Mark 5:02 says only one possessed man emerged

When Jesus commands his disciples to spread the Gospel to Israel, does he tell them to take a staff?
- Matthew 10:10 states Jesus said to take no staff
- Mark 6:8 states Jesus commanded them to take only a staff

Who carries Jesus' cross on the way to Golgotha?
- Matthew 27:32 says that Simon of Cyrene did it
- John 19:17 says Jesus did it himself

How many women went to Jesus' tomb on Sunday morning?
- Matthew 28:01 says Mary Magdalene and the "other" Mary went to the tomb
- Mark 16:01 says that Mary Magdalene; Mary, mother of James; and Salome went
- Luke 23:55-55 & 24:1 & 24:10 all say more than three women went
- John 20:01 says that only Mary Magdalene went

How many men were in Jesus' tomb when the women arrived?
- Luke 24:4 says there were two men in shining garments
- Mark 16:5 says there was only one man in a white garment

I could go on. There's even an awesome online quiz which I could point you to, that features all of the above material, and numerous other contradictions. The Bible is chuck full of inconsistencies, contradictions, inaccurate history and science, and many other short-comings.

In fact, why is it that the virgin birth of Christ is only covered in the gospel of Matthew, and of Luke; but not Mark, or John. You would think that, regardless of the intent of the gospel, such a miracle would be worthy of retelling in all four.

Anyway, all of these are just things for any open-minded individual to take into consideration when contemplating the validity and authenticity of their faith.

~ Wandering Scribe

edit on 21/11/12 by Wandering Scribe because: added link

Then when I read James Padgett (a medium) automatic writing (if true)
Jesus states that about half of the bible is false. Your references seem spot on. If what James Padgett states, in his communications with Jesus in the early 1900's. James was a practicing Lawyer in the Washington DC area that received no money for his communications with Jesus. (if true).

Is it unintelligent to be unoriginal? The title would better suit the OP if the word intelligence were replaced with originality. Sometimes unoriginal thoughts are coincidences.


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

Originally posted by winterkill
I'm new to this site, and have been looking through the different areas and something has come to light. The scarcity of free thought, and the abundance of parrots. Parrots are birds that used to be people, but somewhere along the way, they stopped thinking and began to only retort words that others had spoken. They use those words in defense of their position, without regard to where those they quote obtained their ideas

Mark Twain, summed it up perfectly when he said

“In religion and politics people’s beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.”
― Mark Twain

So the next time you sit down to write a response to someones thoughts or questions, I have an idea. Why don't we molt, shed those feathers of another person's mouth and think for ourselves, speak for ourselves. Not the opinions or research of others, but for ourselves.

You may find it odd that I use another man's words to express this thought, but I do so for a reason. I have researched his life, and what made him and what he made of others. I know from this, that his words are if nothing else, his and his alone, and truthful, and it is because of this I wanted to show you what it was like to hear words of truth straight from the man who created them, and not those who paid to be taught them.

So, what is YOUR and only YOUR thoughts on this?

To say that there is NO INTELLIGENT THOUGHT here on ATS is rather absurd in reality. There are a lot of great posts on this site, many from original thought, others from someone else's idea, but still containing original thought.

It goes without saying that everyone here has an OPINION. As my daddy used to say, Opinions are like buttholes, everybody has one. Having said that, know that there is NO SHORTAGE of Opinions here. Without FREE THOUGHT, topics on this site would indeed dwindle to nothingness.

There are a bunch of skeptics here and those who believe in things. It is not "Good -vs- Evil", but rather Science -vs- Psudo Science or Fact -vs- Rumor or whatever you wish to term and call it.

Welcome to ATS. Hope you find the topics rare and entertaining !

reply to post by charles1952

'Religion and politics, in one form or another, go back thousands of years. They have been discussed and experimented with by some of the most intelligent men in the world in discussions which have, in some cases, continued over centuries. Are you suggesting we throw all that out and restart the process on our own?'

This is the whole point of the exercise of using some intelligent thinking and discussion. You presume that religion and politics are right and correct as they are; but it should be apparent that the current political system does NOT work and religion, as we have it, is a spiritual waste of time.

Democracy, with all that is supposed to mean, is actually non-existent. The head of the country is elected by a porcess which means I only have two candidates to choose from for the top job. Neither of them knows me and I don't know them. So it is a case of 'enie-meanie-minei-moe'... because I know they will tell me anything to get my vote and it's all just political spin, spun by advertisers and advisors. Intelligent thinkers should look at this problem and seek a working solution, instead of blindly accepting the status quo.

Our current religious ideas are a joke, no matter what your religious ideology is. When we make direct contact with our Creator, then we will know we have true religion! People used to have this all the time in the Old Testament, but since the time of the Messiah, there has been complete spiritual silence. Intelligent thinking would require that we recognise and address the problem until we have the proper solution.

Definition of forum noun (plural forums)
1a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged: we hope these pages act as a forum for debate an Internet site where users can post comments about a particular issue or topic and reply to other users' postings; a message board.
2chiefly North American a court or tribunal.
3 (plural fora /ˈfɔːrə/) (in an ancient Roman city) a public square or marketplace used for judicial and other business.

This isn't a Junior Sleuth's Club. This isn't a competition to see who is right or wrong. This is merely a place to exchange ideas. The quality may suffer at times but unoriginal thoughts are some times the best which is why we keep coming back to them.

The general attitude here is everyone should be an expert before posting. This is some kind of group think mentality. Bertrand Russell wrote about how people would rely on "expert" knowledge" and that this would control thought etc. This is some of the parroting you mention. Then you have intentional disinformation from whom ever may be motivated to do so.

I applaud anyone who comes on here to speak their mind to their fellow man or woman regardless of what others may think. People are being conditioned to not ask questions and to accept things as long as we have modern conveniences. The more people who speak up and ask questions ,whether you or I may have seen it or heard it before, the sooner change can be enacted.

Where can I get some hemp to build a flag like danbones!

signature:
THIS BATTLE FLAG WAS MADE OF HEMP IN 1861...THATS WHY IT IS STILL FLYING!
It aint about whos right its about whats right.
Knowing and believing are two different things.

All joking aside, I love people who come on and have discussions.

What I hate is when someone answers the question and is completely ignored while the guy who asked the question rants on about how he has not received a satisfactory answer.

In my opinion originality is merely reconfiguration by degree. Look at music. There are only so many notes. There are only so many chord progressions and combinations possible. Only so many harmonics. Only so many fractions. The Beatles borrowed from Beethoven. Radiohead borrowed from the Beatles. And innumerable other examples, on and on throughout the history of this form of expression.

I believe the same is true of language, both spoken and written (or typed in this case.) While I certainly agree that being as critical and original a thinker as possible is a good thing, what that means for each person is going to differ considerably in my experience. If all thought and creativity is ultimately just emergent behavior - as seems to be the case based on our current understanding - then perhaps the best we can hope for is as unfamiliar an emergence as possible at any given time. But that still won't mean someone other than us hasn't already heard something like it before.

I think what we're really getting at, however, is groupthink. Contagious thought patterns and the behaviors that follow. I agree that the more diverse and distinctive each person's thoughts and behaviors are, the more it benefits them as well the rest of humanity. But I also believe we have these tendencies in the first place for a reason.

It's sort of like - to belabor the analogy - music genres. I don't believe in them personally. Everything just is what it is. But giving things that are more similar than not designations at least linguistically renders them easier to relate and to communicate. I used to really dislike it when people insisted that I label music. I still, internally, eschew that kind of thinking. But I finally realized that some people - maybe most people? - need those labels in order to communicate about them. That doesn't mean those who don't are superior, more intelligent, or more sophisticated in my opinion. (If you can't tell, I abhor elitism.) It just means people are different, have different capacities and perspectives, and are at different points in their lives and thinking.

The other issue, I believe, is that we can take this to dysfunctional levels of analysis. I conclude all of my posts with "Peace," because it's the farewell most congruent with my beliefs and intentions toward other human beings. But "Peace" is a pretty cliche term to use. That could be seen as parroting speech and behavior as well. What is a word, after all, anyway? It's just some symbols that our brains are trained from an early age to associate with a meaning. It's not inherently real in a sense, and certainly not original, since it depends utterly on every one of us adhering from our formative years to a commonly held lexicon of definitions and symbolism. So to be truly original, we'd have to transcend that somehow, in theory, wouldn't we? Yet the fact that we're communicating about this at all at this very moment relies completely on it. The very basis of our ability to communicate is emulation. Are we unoriginal/unintelligent? Or just responding to our reality in the only way we can?

Just my thoughts. Peace.

Wow, mention John Lear's name and your post gets removed x 2


We now live in an online communist society.

Originally posted by Wandering Scribe
reply to post by iwilliam

 

I haven't misrepresented your answer at all. What I recounted is a direct quote from your post right here. It's the very last sentence of your reply to question 6, and it does fairly sum up your opinion on the validity of that question.

You think that atheism, the lack-of-belief, is a religion which subsists on faith; you also think that questioning Christianity through atheism is a pseudo-intellectual pursuit. Both of these stances are patently false.

Atheism is not "having faith that God does not exist" as you seem to believe; it is lacking all belief, or faith, in a higher power, a set of spiritual rituals and ceremonies, and alternate essences (like spirit, soul, etc). Since you clearly demonstrate a biased opinion of atheism, I can safely assume your opinions about the questions atheists pose will also be similarly biased. You do not fail to disappoint.

Now then, the reason that the question of how many women went is important is because the Bible is supposed to be the infallible, divinely inspired word of God. If God cannot count, and if God tells a different story to different people than it makes God an unreliable witness. In a court of law this is akin to lying, and the testimony of an exposed liar is discarded.

The Bible is a flawed document; whatever pseudo-intellectual babble you dress it up in: it is inconsistent, contradictory, historically and scientifically inaccurate, and should not be taken as anything more than religious myth, superstition, and a product of a bygone age.

Sorry if my direct quotations of your work offend you. If you don't want people quoting exactly what you say, then don't say it.

~ Wandering Scribe

You most certainly did misrepresent my answer, as you posted one line from me, and ignored my directly addressing biblical inconsistencies. But maybe you enjoy "spin" as much as you seem to abhor logic. Your viewpoint does not upset me. Your misrepresenting mine does. This is the same as when an interviewer takes one small line out of context and spins it differently than it was intended. If you truly represented my words, it would be apparent I actually agree with your view that the bible is an inconsistent document. But that is no longer what I care most about. I'd like to focus on your denials of logic:


So your belief that god does not exist is not based on faith? Then please provide me with the conclusive proof that your ideas are based on -- conclusive proof that god does not exist. If you can not do this, I will accept this as an admission that your belief in "no god" is, in fact, a form of unprovable faith.

Either you have conclusive, indisputable proof of something, or you have to admit that your unwavering belief is an article of faith. You can not have it both ways.

I'll be waiting (though admittedly not with my breath held)

reply to post by iwilliam


Do you have conclusive proof leprechauns don't exist? Do you believe in them by default? Do you have conclusive proof dragons don't exist? Do you believe in them by default? Do you have conclusive proof vampires don't exist? Do you believe in them by default? I could go on, but you get the point.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by iwilliam

 

Do you have conclusive proof leprechauns don't exist? Do you believe in them by default? Do you have conclusive proof dragons don't exist? Do you believe in them by default? Do you have conclusive proof vampires don't exist? Do you believe in them by default? I could go on, but you get the point.

edit on Fri, 23 Nov 2012 14:53:57 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)

I assume your point is that no one needs proof that those things don't exist, because to believe in them is stupid, or something to that effect?

Maybe it is, and maybe it isn't. That is highly irrelevant to the point I put forth. If you believe that something does not exist without conclusive proof that what you believe is true, and you believe it unwaveringly, that is a matter of FAITH. It fits the very definition.

1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions 2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust 3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs

If you can not prove it, but you believe it, especially strongly and unwaveringly, that is FAITH, pure and simple. I would further suggest that if one believes there is no god so deeply and fervently that they are willing to insult and / or argue with others who think differently, that most definitely indicates a strong faith more than a casual belief or speculation.

Generally speaking, I believe there is a god. I can not prove this, so it is a matter of faith. I find it endlessly amusing that many atheists are so smug and egotistical they can't even admit that their own belief (which lacks proof) is a matter of faith which makes them little different than most of the blind religious followers they look down on. It would be a bit sickening if it weren't hilarious. If you're on the fence, you're agnostic, not atheist. If they're an intelligent and respectful atheist who follows logic and truly respects that above their own petty ego, they typically aren't found wasting their time mocking believers for having faith in something else.

Faith is faith is faith. You can't paint stripes on a horse and call it a zebra.

Well, you could... you would just be an idiot and a liar if you did.

reply to post by iwilliam


No, you got it assbackwards actually. I do not hold belief in things I see no tangible proof of. There is no proof of dragons being real, so I hold no belief in dragons. I see no evidence of unicorns, so I hold no belief in unicorns. I see no proof in the biblical god, so I hold no belief in it. No faith needed. It's not belief, or faith, but lack of it.

reply to post by Maigret

Dear Maigret,

I'm sorry I created such confusion, my writing isn't the best.

I mentioned religion and politics only because it seemed those were the areas the OP appeared primarily interested in.

You presume that religion and politics are right and correct as they are; but it should be apparent that the current political system does NOT work and religion, as we have it, is a spiritual waste of time.

I didn't mean my words to be taken that way. I agree that our politics are not the most efficient. Your religion comment is a little too broad for me to accept as is, but politics first.

I must maintain, however, that the past is invaluable for us. I can't believe that any one of us could invent every form of government there ever was, then pick the one that will work best. But, we can go back through history, get a list of dozens of forms of governments, and see how they played out in practice. I don't say we have to choose one from the past, but I insist we can learn from, and make a better decision by considering, the earlier forms of government.

Our current religious ideas are a joke, no matter what your religious ideology is. When we make direct contact with our Creator, then we will know we have true religion! Intelligent thinking would require that we recognise and address the problem until we have the proper solution.

The reason I have a little difficulty understanding this position is that it is so incredibly impractical. Intelligent thinking requires us to ignore the question of religion until we have all the facts, which will be when we are face to face with the Creator? Do I misunderstand? That's going to be a little late, don't you think? It's not going to happen while we're alive, and after that a useful discussion becomes nearly impossible unless you're thinking of Ouija boards.

People used to have this all the time in the Old Testament, but since the time of the Messiah, there has been complete spiritual silence.

This is not a universally recognized truth. (In fact, most of the world's religions would reject it.)

With respect,
Charles1952

I really enjoyed this thread its my first reply on ATS ( 19 more to go *sigh*) I just would like to ask what do you think "Thought" or "Thinking" really is ?? Anyone here who has a theory, idea?

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by iwilliam

 

No, you got it assbackwards actually. I do not hold belief in things I see no tangible proof of. There is no proof of dragons being real, so I hold no belief in dragons. I see no evidence of unicorns, so I hold no belief in unicorns. I see no proof in the biblical god, so I hold no belief in it. No faith needed. It's not belief, or faith, but lack of it.

I disagree. You are playing a semantics game because doubt is dressed up in the verbal clothing of opposites but it still means "belief with no proof," just in a negative sense-- belief that something does not exist. Dance around the words all you like, but you still believe things with no reason to believe them... just in a negative sense. Why is it so valid to doubt or disBELIEVE something for which you have not personally seen proof? What makes that so much better than accepting something based on circumstantial evidence, or the words of others? And don't get me wrong -- I'm not talking about throwing reason entirely out the window and believing any old notion that enters your head, or which someone claims. Critical thinking is required. But I feel a lot of "skeptics" of your variety like to do away with critical thinking as well, even though you delude yourself into believing otherwise. I say this because when you run into a limitation of your own thinking, and can no longer understand the points of others, you discredit them.

Once upon a time there was no proof that the earth was round. And people like you mocked and laughed at anyone who thought differently. Have you ever SEEN EVIDENCE, I mean with your own eyes, that oxygen molecules exist? Have you seen evidence that the air around us is not truly "empty?" Or do you just take someone else' word for it? What about space-time? Have you seen proof of that one? Believe it? Or was that Einstein joker just plain wrong?

Enjoy your mockery and laughter.

::

A closed mind is neither artistic nor intelligent because it always lacks imagination. And Albert Einstein once said

" Imagination is more important than intelligence ".

reply to post by randyvs


That is true, but remember that imagination without intelligence is can lead to delusion. Be sure that you've drawn a very careful line distinguishing these areas, or you may lose that distinction.