|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 19:14:44 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| Hehehe. Naval gazing. I get it! |
God, you're good!
Here in these forums, such a statement often gets the good ol' "I don't have to prove anything to you" response. That's true, but then why would they be here talking about the existence of ghosts?
|
Because it's Halloween? |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
 Posted - 10/31/2007 : 19:51:59 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck said:
| Dude, are you stating here that you still (dating back to my UAP thread) believe that I am a extraterrestrial visitation True Believer? |
Umm, no. And I'm reasonably sure that you can't actually get that from what I posted.
| Sigh....! Dude, you just did! In Pavlovian reflex, you obeyed the first Rule that Dave just got through explaining to me. Gather evidence! |
Again, I'll say this. I use this method because it is proven to be usefull and effective.
Again, once more, if you have some reason to think that there is a flaw in the scientific method, critical thinking, or any of the other tools used by skeptics, then please explain this flaw or problem.
Make your case!
Because what you seem to be saying is that if everyone is doing it, or using it, it must me wrong or flawed. You claim a degree in philosophy and several decades more life experience than I, so surely you can spot the flaw in what it appears you are saying. I'm not trying to create some strawman here, this is what I am taking from your words. If I'm wrong, then by all means consider this a request for you to explain your position again so maybe I'll grasp it.
I use critical thinking and the scientific method because they work. If you can explain why I shouldn't, and your explanation can withstand the intense scrutiny it recieves and remain intact, then you can sway me to your position.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 20:05:54 [Permalink]
|
1/2 Moon.....
| Well, I agree with H.H. I also find it weird to ponder the idea that "a lot" of agnostics and atheists attend church and label themselves "religious." |
| I suspect the vast majority of us agnostics and atheists regularly avoid churches and would shudder at the prospect of considering ourselves religious. |
I go to various churches frequently! You know, no athiests in foxholes and all that! Seriously, it is an amazing learning experience to be up front and personal in the audience of these astoundingly varied dog and pony shows! It is one thing to read of and about fundamentalists, but it is quite another to go to a pentacostal service in Nashville, Tennesee, or Louisville Kentucky!
Same goes for politics. I currently live in the reddest state in the Union. I'm probably in one of the reddest neighborhoods in that whole state. Talk about getting a personal understanding of what elected Bush, et al, twice! Wow! All I can say is - Know thy enemy!
Hey....I only label myself an agnostic atheist when asked: Religion? |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2007 : 22:49:48 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
| OH! Then I (and many others, it seems) misunderstood you (please note admission of error). |
Noted!
| Really, if someone comes here and says "a ghost knocked a picture off my wall," it's not our problem to solve. |
I said: unless you care about the Picasso! Did you miss that?
| No. Don't confuse the scientific method with skepticism. They make use of each other, but they're not identical. |
No confusion. Two patterns cut from the same cloth| That which you quote is prone to misuse by its very wording. I never said that you misused it. |
Just lucky that I didn't!| OH! Then I (and many others, it seems) misunderstood you (please note admission of error). |
Yes, Dave, I commend you on your born-again humility.
| Honestly, I want there to be magic in the world. I am disappointed when people who claim that there is can't cough up a convincing demonstration. |
Speaking of coughing up, hey, did you see Phenomenon on NBC tonight (Halloween)? Criss Angel AND Uri Geller with a bunch of totally disappointing amateurs. I wrote JR, I expect a real salvo from him. I mean this program is pure shit!
Dave, you're all that and a bag of crow bones! See you et all (sic) tomorrow! |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 10/31/2007 23:04:37 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 00:08:02 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
| Umm, no. And I'm reasonably sure that you can't actually get that from what I posted. |
No, you were circumspect.
| Again, I'll say this. I use this method because it is proven to be usefull and effective. |
Of course it is, or it would not be a staple in the pantry of Science.| Again, once more, if you have some reason to think that there is a flaw in the scientific method, critical thinking, or any of the other tools used by skeptics, then please explain this flaw or problem. |
Dude, I see no flaw in any of the sacred "tools" other than incompletion. I am merely commenting on the, to me, similarity between these constructs and those of religion (dogma, for example) and indeed the perception that Skepticism can be seen as a religion in and of itself!Oh my goodness, enough with the lines in the sand! I have no case to make, merely an idea to consider in an objective, non confrontational, devoid of testosterone, non-emotional way. (Note lack of exclamation point!)| Because what you seem to be saying is that if everyone is doing it, or using it, it must me wrong or flawed. |
Everyone breathes and uses air and it is not wrong. I said nothing about wrongness or being flawed. It is significantly right and has relatively few flaws or it wouldn't work as well as it does. This does not even relate in any way to the perceived similarities that I have spoken of.| You claim a degree in philosophy and several decades more life experience than I, so surely you can spot the flaw in what it appears you are saying. |
I have a degree in psychology, I had a minor in philosophy as an undergraduate. I claim several more decades than most around here, but those years are only relevant to my competence in these endeavors on the forums if they have been contributive to my education and skill development in debate and discussion. This remains to be seen.
There is no flaw, because what you have heard is not what I am saying.
| I'm not trying to create some strawman here, this is what I am taking from your words. If I'm wrong, then by all means consider this a request for you to explain your position again so maybe I'll grasp it. |
I see no strawman (although I see the word far too much around these quarters) You are wrong, but in one way or another I have been explaining this repeatedly in this thread, and several others. All I can suggest is that you reread this whole thread from beginning to end, and then see if you still don't understand (not necessarily agree with) my position. I read every thread from beginning to last post every time before I attempt to answer anyone's questions, and I still find I miss subtleties and implications from time to time.
| I use critical thinking and the scientific method because they work. If you can explain why I shouldn't, and your explanation can withstand the intense scrutiny it recieves and remain intact, then you can sway me to your position. |
By all means continue as you have. I certainly have no desire to sway you to or from anything. All I might suggest is that you control the methodology of your thinking, do not permit that methodology to control you! Or don't hit your thumb with the hammer while driving a nail! |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 03:18:22 [Permalink]
|
Well, here's the thing.
If something better (objectively so) for problem solving, testing observations and hypotheses, and evaluating claims were to be introduced tomorrow then I'd gladly toss the scientific method and critical thinking into the fire.
If someone could make a sound and valid case for why skepticism (noun) (i.e. doubt) should not be the default position for all claims of truth, and why skepticism (verb) should not be applied to the evaluation of these claims, then I'd definitely be listening.
The problem you are facing here is that to this particular segment of humanity the words dogma and religion carry a negative connotation. Even if you intend those descriptions in the most generalized sense, they will offend. We are just people after all. But we get a stream of kooks and woo-woos in here who want to apply "religion" and "dogma" to our positions on evolution, atheism, global warming, science, 9/11, the sun, critical thinking, and skepticism itself (you are not the first to make the accusation, and I am not calling you a kook or woo-woo), so you can see why we'd be a little defensive and offended when such comments are made.
bngbuck said:
| Dude, I see no flaw in any of the sacred "tools" other than incompletion. I am merely commenting on the, to me, similarity between these constructs and those of religion (dogma, for example) and indeed the perception that Skepticism can be seen as a religion in and of itself! |
I don't want to be repetitive here, you already know that I disagree with your assessment and consider it somewhat intentionally provacative. So let me ask you this: What would convince you that you are mistaken?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9688 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 06:08:32 [Permalink]
|
I have stayed clear of this thread since it began because I haven't had the time or haven't felt like watching it. Still haven't.
Perhaps that was a mistake because perhaps I can still contribute to it. From page one:
Originally posted by bngbuck
...
But the apparent aversion of many critical thinkers, Skeptics if you will, to the hypothetical, to "imagine, if you will for a moment..."is evident. Imaginary scenarios seem too unlikely, removed from reality, to capture the attention of many skeptics. We want evidence! To confirm or discredit! Bust the myth or uphold it! |
Perhaps we do (use our imagination) to an much larger extent than you realise, it's just that we don't don't write about it. And in the end, our mission here at SFN is to bust the myth rather than uphold it. It is so surprising that we appear unyielding?
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
| Edited by - Dr. Mabuse on 11/01/2007 06:25:15 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 11:09:18 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
I am curious as to your perseverance regarding this subject.| If something better (objectively so) for problem solving, testing observations and hypotheses, and evaluating claims were to be introduced tomorrow then I'd gladly toss the scientific method and critical thinking into the fire. |
(Bolding mine)
Your use of the word "gladly" suggests either that you would like to find something better, or sardonically, that you don't believe there is anything better. I don't recall expressing an opinion that there were glaring flaws in the SM, or Skepticism as a mental lifestyle, nor that Critical Thinking was not a useful skill. (My experience with many Drama and Restaurant critics to the contrary)
I guess we would have to get rather deeply into what you mean and what I understand to be "claims of truth" to thoroughly examine this subject.| The problem you are facing here is that to this particular segment of humanity the words dogma and religion carry a negative connotation. Even if you intend those descriptions in the most generalized sense, they will offend. We are just people after all. But we get a stream of kooks and woo-woos in here who want to apply "religion" and "dogma" to our positions on evolution, atheism, global warming, science, 9/11, the sun, critical thinking, and skepticism itself (you are not the first to make the accusation, and I am not calling you a kook or woo-woo), so you can see why we'd be a little defensive and offended when such comments are made. |
Your apologetic does highlight some of the issues I have been trying to discuss! Somehow, it does not seem fitting and proper to me for professed "critical thinkers" to carry bias of any stripe into the arena. It could even be compared to the baggage that some "True Believers" or "Fundies" haul onto the jousting fields and then proceed to trip over. Whether it's "just people" or superhuman response colossi (like Dave), either way I don't feel it behooves a critical thinking, skeptical, scientific methodologist to ply her craft whilst bearing marks of predetermined bias on his sleeve!
I actually do not see many, even most, of the folks here at SFN, coming to the forum with a suitcase full of negative connotations, ready to be offended, defensive at the slightest percieved umbrage (well, maybe Dave!) So I don't really think your comment on the undue sensitivity of forum folks is completely accurate. A few months ago there seemed to be a few procyonidae lurking in the trees common to the lofty heights at which we operate, but apparently some Daniel Boone got himself a cap!| I don't want to be repetitive here, you already know that I disagree with your assessment and consider it somewhat intentionally provacative. So let me ask you this: What would convince you that you are mistaken? |
Dude, mistaken as to what? That I see some similarities between Skepticism and Catholicism, in that I feel that they are both belief systems? That the term Religion has a much broader connotation than merely the theological one. Marf pointed this out eloquently here:| Skepticism is not the opposite of religion. You seem to be confusing faith in dogma with religion. Religion is one of those things that doesn't have a single definition that can be summed up in a sentence or two. Religion has historically in most cultures including the Western tradition been as much about practices and institutions as it has been about a set of beliefs. How many agnostics and even atheists regularly attend church and label themselves "religious". (Answer: a lot!) I think it is setting up a straw man to say that what bngbuck has put forward is equivocal to social clubs. |
As to provocative, if you mean that in the sense of my hoping to provoke some introspection on the subject, you are correct. I feel that the entire discussion is epistomological in nature and should be regarded as such.
I have stated here twice that as long as it is completely understood and agreed that Skepticism, Critical thinking, and The Scientific Method are fair game for criticism, deconstruction, and verbal abuse (all totally documented and referenced, of course), then I should reconsider my broad definition of Dogma.
To specifically address your question:
What would convince you that you are mistaken?
1. A clear and concise statement as to what I am mistaken about.
2. Compelling logic demonstrating that my position was incorrect, with or without referents, links, or endless examples! |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 12:34:20 [Permalink]
|
| (Answer: a lot!) I think it is setting up a straw man to say that what bngbuck has put forward is equivocal to social clubs. |
As to provocative, if you mean that in the sense of my hoping to provoke some introspection on the subject, you are correct. I feel that the entire discussion is epistomological in nature and should be regarded as such.
|
I'm not really able to follow the meaning of or reason for most of this discussion, but I don't think anyone is arguing that the word religion has different definitions, the point is so what? How useful is it to say that we have religions if you by 'religion' you mean 'point of view?' |
I know the rent is in arrears
The dog has not been fed in years
It's even worse than it appears
But it's alright-
Jerry Garcia
Robert Hunter
|
| Edited by - Gorgo on 11/01/2007 12:38:56 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 13:05:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Skepticism is not the opposite of religion. You seem to be confusing faith in dogma with religion. |
I'm not confused. Faith must be an integral part of anything calling itself a religion. It is how you choose to use the word religion which is in error.
| Religion is one of those things that doesn't have a single definition that can be summed up in a sentence or two. Religion has historically in most cultures including the Western tradition been as much about practices and institutions as it has been about a set of beliefs. |
It is more than possible to make the distinction between a religion and the cultural influences of that religion. I know you prefer ambiguity on this topic, but I have always regarded your attempts to label secular fellowship "religion" as misguided as those who try to label Intelligent Design "science." Things don't cease being what they are simply because you change what you call them.
| How many agnostics and even atheists regularly attend church and label themselves "religious". (Answer: a lot!) |
You like to say this, mostly because the people you associate with may fit this description, but I still believe that the number of self-identifying religious atheists is negligible. (I'd guess less than 1% of the population, nowhere close to "a lot.") But even more importantly, not all atheists are skeptics. One may still be highly credulous in a great deal of spiritual woo without professing a belief in god. A truly skeptical atheist who holds zero religious beliefs but attends a church for it's social benefits is not a religious person. I don't care if such a person labels themselves religious--they are mistaken and are misusing the word. You can't make a word mean something it doesn't simply because you want to. Religion is the opposite of skepticism. Always will be.
| I think it is setting up a straw man to say that what bngbuck has put forward is equivocal to social clubs. |
Right. bngbuck used the word originally to mean a collective belief in a questionable proposition which much be taken on faith. That original usage was wrong. Rather than admit his error (which was ironic considering that refusing to admit error was the very accusation he leveled at others here), bngbuck shifted to a more general definition. It was total dishonesty on his part.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 11/01/2007 15:50:33 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 15:37:45 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck said:
| Your use of the word "gladly" suggests either that you would like to find something better, or sardonically, that you don't believe there is anything better. I don't recall expressing an opinion that there were glaring flaws in the SM, or Skepticism as a mental lifestyle, nor that Critical Thinking was not a useful skill. |
And:
To specifically address your question:
What would convince you that you are mistaken?
1. A clear and concise statement as to what I am mistaken about.
2. Compelling logic demonstrating that my position was incorrect, with or without referents, links, or endless examples! |
Your use of the words "dogma" and "religion".
From Merriam Webster:
dogma: 1 a : something held as an established opinion; especially : one or more definite and authoritative tenets b : a code or systematized formulation of such tenets (as by a theoretician or a school of art or philosophy) <pedagogical dogma> <communist dogma> c : a point of view or alleged authoritative tenet put forth as dogma without adequate grounds : an arrogant or vehement expression of opinion
2 : a doctrine or body of doctrines of theology and religion formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church
|
If you mean only 1a, then fine. But that is not the impression conveyed by your posts. You have qualified "dogma" with words like "blind" and "pavlovian". So your intended meaning is clearly incorrect.
None of the regulars here "blindly" follow anything. We use skepticism and critical thinking because (like the hammer for the nail) they are, in our opinion, the best tools for the job. If anyone finds a better tool for driving nails, do you have any doubt that the hammer would then become obsolete? There was a time in history when the bow and arrow were considered the best tool for hunting, no longer is that the case. Same principle for skepticism. There is nothing dogmatic about it except in the most general sense of the word, and that connotation is so rarely used that most people would choose a different word.
Also from Merriam Webster:
religion: 1 : the personal commitment to and serving of God or a god with worshipful devotion, conduct in accord with divine commands especially as found in accepted sacred writings or declared by authoritative teachers, a way of life recognized as incumbent on true believers, and typically the relating of oneself to an organized body of believers <ministers of religion>
2 : the state of a religious <retire into religion> <the nun died in her thirtieth year of religion>
3 a : one of the systems of faith and worship : a religious faith <monotheistic religions> <tolerant of all religions> <for bidding discrimination because of race, color, or religion> b : the body of institutionalized expressions of sacred beliefs, observances, and social practices found within a given cultural context <the religion of this primitive people>
4 : the profession or practice of religious beliefs : religious observances <the kernel of his practical religion was that it was respectable, and beneficial to one's business, to be seen going to services -- Sinclair Lewis>
5 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS, FIDELITY
6 a : a personal awareness or conviction of the existence of a supreme being or of supernatural powers or influences controlling one's own, humanity's, or all nature's destiny <only man appears to be capable of religion> b : the access of such an awareness or conviction accompanied by or arousing reverence, gratitude, humility, the will to obey and serve : religious experience or insight <in middle life he suddenly got religion>
7 a : a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness, and faith : a value held to be of supreme importance <by making democracy our religion and by practicing as well as preaching its doctrines -- W.O.Douglas> <Marxism was his religion> <he has made a religion of pleasure, and it is a brave thing to do these days -- Gerald Sykes> b : a quality, condition, custom, or thing inspiring zealous devotion, conscientious maintenance, and cherishing <a religion with him to preserve in good condition all that had lapsed from his mother's hands -- Thomas Hardy>
|
This word cannot be used to describe skepticism. As H.H. has said, they mean opposite things.
bngbuck said:
As to provocative, if you mean that in the sense of my hoping to provoke some introspection on the subject, you are correct. I feel that the entire discussion is epistomological in nature and should be regarded as such.
|
I mean in the sense of deliberately insulting.
Most of the regulars here probably consider themselves logical and philosophical (Locke, Hume, Berkeley) empiricists, as far as epistemology goes.
| That I see some similarities between Skepticism and Catholicism, in that I feel that they are both belief systems? That the term Religion has a much broader connotation than merely the theological one. Marf pointed this out eloquently here: |
Sure, but you have taken it further and insist that skepticism is a religion. Cars have 4 tire, headlights, windshield wipers, steering wheels, turn signals, and engines. So do trucks, but that doesn't make my truck a car. Mosquitos and humans both have eyes, blood, and stomachs! Does that mean they are the same thing? Some bacteria and humans metabolize glocose in the exact same way, does that mean they are the same thing?
Just because two things share common traits does not mean you can equate them.
As for Marf's opinion of religion she is, as H.H. pointed out, simply wrong.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 16:11:32 [Permalink]
|
Hambert........
Barb taken, removed, measured, and classified. Good shot!| I'm not confused. Faith must be an integral part of anything calling itself a religion. It is how you choose to use the word religion which is in error. |
You sound pretty confused to me. Are you suddenly an oracular authority on the definition of religion, and how one must use the word?
Humb, you have hectored me and others on these forums many times to offer up substantiation for our statements. How about you following your own advice? Faith must be an integral part of anything calling itself a religion? I need an authority or two (god, am I really doing this?)for that statement, or ELSE you to state that the above is just your opinion! That way, nobody looks foolish!
Scientology comes to mind. Tom Cruise and friends call their Madness Association a religion, the IRS gives them tax status, but where is their faith? Kind of where the group that used to believe in Freudian Psychology was, when there were any of them. You say faith must be a integral part of anything calling itself a religion. What is the Faith in Scientology?
What is the faith inherent in Wicca? Some time ago I had occasion to look fairly seriously into the wiccan phenomenon and the more I tried, the more I became confused! I'm damned if I know if they have a faith or not, but one thing sure, it's pretty hard to define!| It is more than possible to make the distinction between a religion and the cultural influences of that religion. |
Could you expand this thought a little? I do not understand what that sentence means!| You can't make a word mean something it doesn't simply because you want to. |
| Religion is the opposite of skepticism. Always will be. |
There you go again! Destroying your own dogmatic statement! In the same sentence!| Right. bngbuck used the word originally to mean a collective belief in a questionable proposition which much be taken on faith. That original usage was wrong. It was total dishonesty on his part. |
Total! How often do I slink away from these forums, feeling like a scoundrel and a thief! What questionable proposition?| That original usage was wrong. |
Sez who?| bngbuck shifted to a more general definition. It was total dishonesty on his part. |
Young man, you have no idea what total dishonesty is |
| Edited by - bngbuck on 11/01/2007 16:15:31 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 16:41:30 [Permalink]
|
bngbuck, if you expect me to respond to your questions, please have the courtesy to get my name right.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 16:55:23 [Permalink]
|
What is the Faith in Scientology?
|
They accept, without evidence, that humans are the result of the actions of some alien emperor who lived millions of years ago and several other equally insane things.
When you accept something as true without evidence, its called faith.
Seriously, are you just trolling us?
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/01/2007 : 18:40:00 [Permalink]
|
Dude.....
Do you winter in New York by any chance? I know a lot of those guys come down to Florida for the summer!| If you mean only 1a, then fine. But that is not the impression conveyed by your posts. You have qualified "dogma" with words like "blind" and "pavlovian". So your intended meaning is clearly incorrect. |
Yes, I meant the first, or primary, 1a definition. What you mean by my "blind dogma" or "pavlovian dogma" escapes me. I searched back through my posts in this thread, and I couldn't find me saying "blind" or "pavlovian" dogma. Could it be that you are forcing words into my unwilling mouth?
| None of the regulars here "blindly" follow anything. We use skepticism and critical thinking because (like the hammer for the nail) they are, in our opinion, the best tools for the job. If anyone finds a better tool for driving nails, do you have any doubt that the hammer would then become obsolete? |
Dude, I think I have covered this ground pretty well in several other posts on this thread; including the oft-appearing metaphorical toolbox full of carpenters hammers and nails!. That one must be a well-thumbed book, page and verse in the Handbook! I even wrote a bit about the successor to the hammer!| .....and that connotation is so rarely used that most people would choose a different word. |
You know, I guess I'm just not most people.| This word cannot be used to describe skepticism. |
Boy, that sounds pretty dogmatic to me!
Here's a quote from wiki:
| A religion is a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people |
As somebody has accurately pointed out here, you can find any definition or set of definitions that you may want or need. The effort becomes ludicrous after awhile. It is a game, and I have played it enough! Let me say right here and now that I define Skepticism as a sort of "religion" for my purposes of argument. You go right ahead and make up your own definition, and use it. The whole damn thing gets silly at some point.| I mean in the sense of deliberately insulting. |
Oh come on! Insulted whom? Get ten different forum folks (besides you and Humbert) to post on this thread that I have insulted them personally with my arguments concerning the use of the words Skepticism and Religion, and I will apologize loudly and publicly to the whole group!| Sure, but you have taken it further and insist that skepticism is a religion. Cars have 4 tire, headlights, windshield wipers, steering wheels, turn signals, and engines. So do trucks, but that doesn't make my truck a car. Mosquitos and humans both have eyes, blood, and stomachs! Does that mean they are the same thing? Some bacteria and humans metabolize glocose in the exact same way, does that mean they are the same thing? |
1. What is my SUV?
2. Yes. They are both eukaryotes
3. Yes. they are both organisms.| Just because two things share common traits does not mean you can equate them. |
I did not intend nor did I in fact equate them. I have only spoken to perceived similarities.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Suicide Bombing - AAI
