origin of life...

[falcon9]

I didn't exactly imply that my critical thinking capabilities were applied to my belief.  I know it was implied earlier by QoN that they were somehow incongruous in the same person.

 

... because the only construct that seems available is mutual exclusion or contradictory claims.  Mutual exclusion is easily dismissed ...

The inherent implication, (that "superior critical thinking skills" are being applied to religious belief), is not so easily dismissed, as previously iterated.

 

...and contradiction would would be impossible to prove even if it were true and speculated.  

The implicit contradiction is that, if critical thinking skills are not being applied to "belief", then the claims are contradictory.

I found it quite easily dismissed actually.

Of course you did; after all, they contradict your contentions, however easily you may find your contrary contentions to dismiss, others do not, (because they aren't applied bias self-interest to your asserted contention).

Realize, though, your supposition is flawed as the original contention it is derived from is that critical thinking skills are 'missing' or maybe 'flawed' in those who believe, and not any direct application to the belief in particular.  

The supposition was unflawed due to the inherent inclusion of it's opposite; that, if critical thinking skills are being applied to religious
beliefs, (that is, satisfying such burden of proof requirements for claims made resulting from those religious beliefs), the the claimed "superior critical thinking skills" are flawed/missing in that regard.

Regardless I gave indication that I do apply it to my belief and I also cited a critical thinking skill that can solve for the unknown indirectly.  Even if they were not applied to the belief, the statement wouldn't be contradictory.  The logical error here is that you are making a connection between critical thinking and belief where no such connection was ever directly indicated.

The "logical error" you're looking for lies within the two contrary, (and therefore, mutually-exclusive), assertions you just made, above.  Specifically, that "... I gave indication that I do apply it to my belief ..." and you thereby " ... making a connection between critical thinking and belief where no such connection was ever directly indicated" and "I didn't exactly imply that my critical thinking capabilities were applied to my belief ...".  As you can see from your own statements within this post, you first indicated that you applied critical thinking to your belief, followed that with a statement that there was no such connection being made as to that application and then contradicted yourself by asserted that you didn't "imply" what you'd just asserted.

On my planet, (which is earth - contrary to any speculations that it may be "Vulcan"), that sort of thing constitutes both an irrational/illogical position and an inability to apply critical thinking skills, (despite unsupported claims to the the contrary).  Unless you're an alien precurser to invasion from the planet "Contrarian", your contentions practically refute themselves.  Now we shall apparently speak more of squirrels and sealing wax and sailing ships ...

I didn't see that squirrel I ran over today either -- no really I didn't see it I just happened to swerve that way at the time ...

Metaphorically, that squirrel may be said to represent self-declared "superior critical thinking skills" and hubris, (literally, it represented an bad day for the squirrel).

“Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense.”
-- Voltaire

No, it was just a squirrel and now it is a spot, although it was indeed a terrible day for the squirrel.  I haven't salvaged a peach off my trees in years because of these clever thieves.  Now my garden is also at risk it seems.  I have tried owl and snake decoys, water bowls strategically placed for them, fencing and netting.  The only thing I haven't used is fox urine (too many dogs around my parts and here animals are kept free to do that) or bagging each cluster (might try that next year as it is too late this year).  In addition it seems that every woodpecker and bluejay and martin within 20 miles of me knows of the 'free meal' (I will not go offensive on the birds though so I have to try moving the owl decoy about a couple times a day I suppose).

Although not a particularly subtle observation on my part, surely you're aware that squirrels are attracted to nuts ...

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
-- Gene Roddenberry

[Cuppycake]

He was asking a question about the afterlife, if I understood is question correctly.

Actually, two questions were asked.  The first related to the origins of existence/life and the second to any potential "afterlife" existence.  Being xtian, presumably you skipped the more complex question and simply posted a parroted religious/blind-faith POV instead.

How would atheism "help" with this matter, if you don't even believe in an afterlife? Besides, it's good for him to hear another POV, isn't it?

Where did I state that I was either atheist or, didn't speculate upon an "afterlife"?  Did you bother to read and comprehend the posted reply to "waterbearer" before you jumped to unwarranted conclusions?  That's one of the main problems with blind faith; that jumping to conclusions based upon the specious religious beliefs of others, (such as the collection of fictions in 'the bible'), instead of using reasoning.


"Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it, religion has actually convinced
people that there's an INVISIBLE MAN...LIVING IN THE SKY...who watches every thing you do, every minute of every day.
And the invisible man has a list of ten special things that he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these
ten things, he has a special place full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send to
live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever 'til the end of time...but he loves you!"
-- George Carlin, (from his album "You Are All Diseased")

I am much more likely to believe that we are part of the insides of another being (hence the darkness of space) rather then an invisible man in the sky hahaha ! My made up theory is more believable then the  in the bible tbh.

[jordandog]

I am much more likely to believe that we are part of the insides of another being....

hand up, waving furiously: Please, please can I be in the stomach? I love my food!

[duroz]

I am much more likely to believe that we are part of the insides of another being....

hand up, waving furiously: Please, please can I be in the stomach? I love my food!

NOW jordandog....don't hog all the fun....there's probably room for a couple of people in there......
(& have you checked out the internet "G-SEA" for bottles with mysterious messages lately?)

[queenofnines]

These "contradictions and absurdities" are drawn from ignorance and a lack of understanding.

Yes, that is the token response that believers give.  It just sounds like an excuse if you ask me.  One doesn't need to read the "Cliff's Notes" of what is wrong with the Bible on some site to be convinced; just read the Bible on your own from start to finish, and if you don't walk away repulsed, your need for a security blanket surpasses your own logical ability.

Why wouldn't it be wise?

Your only guaranteed life is a terrible thing to waste running around believing in a bunch of falsehoods.  Also, some of the rubbish a believer adheres to can actually be harmful; not only for them, but for others around them.

I am a believer and I have superior critical thinking skills (compared to most), so am I to assume you are suggesting what I know you are not?

Ha, too funny.  Plenty of smart people can compartmentalize their thoughts/beliefs and be incredibly intelligent in one instance and incredibly stupid in another.  We all decide what's most important: the actual truth (regardless of what we wish it would be), or a safe haven for our primitive fears surrounding purpose, death, etc.

[gamerpeeps]

WOW. Just deep.

[falcon9]

These "contradictions and absurdities" are drawn from ignorance and a lack of understanding.

Yes, that is the token response that believers give.  It just sounds like an excuse if you ask me.  One doesn't need to read the "Cliff's Notes" of what is wrong with the Bible on some site to be convinced; just read the Bible on your own from start to finish, and if you don't walk away repulsed, your need for a security blanket surpasses your own logical ability.

Indeed.  I'd briefly considered responding to that portion of "Abrupt's" missive with 'the failure to discern such contradictions and absurdities is far more likely to arise from not apply critical thinking skills than from belief/faith'.

Why wouldn't it be wise?

Your only guaranteed life is a terrible thing to waste running around believing in a bunch of falsehoods.  Also, some of the rubbish a believer adheres to can actually be harmful; not only for them, but for others around them.

Much of it is harmful; either to the physical or, mental well-being of both the partipant-adherents to such beliefs or, to the innocent bystanders those beliefs are inflicted upon.

I am a believer and I have superior critical thinking skills (compared to most), so am I to assume you are suggesting what I know you are not?

Ha, too funny.  Plenty of smart people can compartmentalize their thoughts/beliefs and be incredibly intelligent in one instance and incredibly stupid in another.  We all decide what's most important: the actual truth (regardless of what we wish it would be), or a safe haven for our primitive fears surrounding purpose, death, etc.

That's why such compartmentalization was characterized as 'selectively' applying critical thinking/reason to some facets of life while electing to not apply them to religious beliefs', (even if a claim is made that they are applied to religious beliefs when they demonstrably are not).

As your Carl Sagan quote reminds those who choose otherwise; "It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring."

[queenofnines]

Hi falcon,

You said you were confused in your message; well I'm confused as I have no idea how you were able to send me a PM...I thought this option was disabled for all members!  It is for me.

In answer to your question, I use Windows Vista.  But I don't think that's what it is, as I wade through all of my quotes manually and delete all of the unnecessary junk; that's why mine always look so pretty. 

[falcon9]

Hi falcon,

Hello, QoN.

You said you were confused in your message; well I'm confused as I have no idea how you were able to send me a PM...I thought this option was disabled for all members!  It is for me.

We shouldn't be able to send PMs, true.  Must have been a 'message in a bottle' that fortuitiously washed-ashore from the 'net-sea ... ;->

In answer to your question, I use Windows Vista.  But I don't think that's what it is, as I wade through all of my quotes manually and delete all of the unnecessary junk; that's why mine always look so pretty. 

Upon further reflection, it's probably a result of something else entirely, (since I too use win-vista).  Yes, your post formating is real 'purdy', QoN.

[Abrupt]

I didn't exactly imply that my critical thinking capabilities were applied to my belief.  I know it was implied earlier by QoN that they were somehow incongruous in the same person.

 

... because the only construct that seems available is mutual exclusion or contradictory claims.  Mutual exclusion is easily dismissed ...

The inherent implication, (that "superior critical thinking skills" are being applied to religious belief), is not so easily dismissed, as previously iterated.

 

...and contradiction would would be impossible to prove even if it were true and speculated.  

The implicit contradiction is that, if critical thinking skills are not being applied to "belief", then the claims are contradictory.

I found it quite easily dismissed actually.

Of course you did; after all, they contradict your contentions, however easily you may find your contrary contentions to dismiss, others do not, (because they aren't applied bias self-interest to your asserted contention).

There is absolutely zero contradiction in my statements.

Realize, though, your supposition is flawed as the original contention it is derived from is that critical thinking skills are 'missing' or maybe 'flawed' in those who believe, and not any direct application to the belief in particular.  

The supposition was unflawed due to the inherent inclusion of it's opposite; that, if critical thinking skills are being applied to religious
beliefs, (that is, satisfying such burden of proof requirements for claims made resulting from those religious beliefs), the the claimed "superior critical thinking skills" are flawed/missing in that regard.

You display the flaw again in that you assume opposition where none exists.  The inclusion of critical thinking skills does not necessitate that they are adamantly applied to whatever rule-set you would impose -- even science should have taught you that as there are vastly different critically thought out theories that are not agreeable (e.g. various higgsless vs higgs models).  The conclusion doesn't govern the process nor does the process validate the conclusion.

Regardless I gave indication that I do apply it to my belief and I also cited a critical thinking skill that can solve for the unknown indirectly.  Even if they were not applied to the belief, the statement wouldn't be contradictory.  The logical error here is that you are making a connection between critical thinking and belief where no such connection was ever directly indicated.

The "logical error" you're looking for lies within the two contrary, (and therefore, mutually-exclusive), assertions you just made, above.  Specifically, that "... I gave indication that I do apply it to my belief ..." and you thereby " ... making a connection between critical thinking and belief where no such connection was ever directly indicated" and "I didn't exactly imply that my critical thinking capabilities were applied to my belief ...".  As you can see from your own statements within this post, you first indicated that you applied critical thinking to your belief, followed that with a statement that there was no such connection being made as to that application and then contradicted yourself by asserted that you didn't "imply" what you'd just asserted.

On my planet, (which is earth - contrary to any speculations that it may be "Vulcan"), that sort of thing constitutes both an irrational/illogical position and an inability to apply critical thinking skills, (despite unsupported claims to the the contrary).  Unless you're an alien precurser to invasion from the planet "Contrarian", your contentions practically refute themselves.  Now we shall apparently speak more of squirrels and sealing wax and sailing ships ...

There is no contrary statements being made by me.  To make it easier for you to figure out your error, I will absolutely agree that those were the things I said.  I will also absolutely state that there was no contradiction in anything I said.  You are effectively chasing your own shadow here.  My confidence is such that if this were a bet I would immediately go "all in" without the slightest bit of hesitation.  You need to look back closely at the posts and observe their place and relevance.  To help you out, follow this chain (in the correct order this time, not juxtaposed as you indicated above):

earliest statement in reply to a post of yours:  "I didn't exactly imply that my critical thinking capabilities were applied to my belief ..."

next statement in a separate paragraph referencing new information in a previous paragraph that was a reply to your earlier post:   "... I gave indication that I do apply it to my belief ..."

It is amazing what happens when you actually put them in the order they appeared.

Related, but somewhat off topic I will highlight that I have great difficulty with three dimensional spatial tests.  I try to train and improve this skill but it is something that is innately difficult for me.  I have noticed on a few occasions you display sequence and flow discrepancies.  I wonder if you are a hand speed reader and you don't use it on your display or if you might know if you possibly have a sequence synesthesia? 

I didn't see that squirrel I ran over today either -- no really I didn't see it I just happened to swerve that way at the time ...

Metaphorically, that squirrel may be said to represent self-declared "superior critical thinking skills" and hubris, (literally, it represented an bad day for the squirrel).

“Nothing can be more contrary to religion and the clergy than reason and common sense.”
-- Voltaire

No, it was just a squirrel and now it is a spot, although it was indeed a terrible day for the squirrel.  I haven't salvaged a peach off my trees in years because of these clever thieves.  Now my garden is also at risk it seems.  I have tried owl and snake decoys, water bowls strategically placed for them, fencing and netting.  The only thing I haven't used is fox urine (too many dogs around my parts and here animals are kept free to do that) or bagging each cluster (might try that next year as it is too late this year).  In addition it seems that every woodpecker and bluejay and martin within 20 miles of me knows of the 'free meal' (I will not go offensive on the birds though so I have to try moving the owl decoy about a couple times a day I suppose).

Although not a particularly subtle observation on my part, surely you're aware that squirrels are attracted to nuts ...

"We must question the story logic of having an all-knowing all-powerful God, who creates faulty humans, and then blames them for his own mistakes."
-- Gene Roddenberry

I would be the last to insist that I was sane.

"You'd better believe it Gene Roddenberry, and now .... get off my bridge!"
-- Shatner to Roddenberry

[falcon9]

There is absolutely zero contradiction in my statements.
"... I gave indication that I do apply it {critical thinking} to my belief ..."
There is no contrary statements being made by me.
thereby " ... making a connection between critical thinking and belief where no such connection was ever directly indicated"
I will absolutely agree that those were the things I said.  I will also absolutely state that there was no contradiction in anything I said.

The "logical error" you're looking for lies within the two contrary, (and therefore, mutually-exclusive), assertions you just made, above.  
Specifically, that "... I gave indication that I do apply it to my belief ..." and you thereby " ... making a connection between critical thinking and belief where no such connection was ever directly indicated" and "I didn't exactly imply that my critical thinking capabilities were applied to my belief ...".  As you can see from your own statements within this post, you first indicated that you applied critical thinking to your belief, followed that with a statement that there was no such connection being made as to that application and then contradicted yourself by asserted that you didn't "imply" what you'd just asserted. Simply denying your own words won't confer plausibility upon them.

On my planet, (which is earth - contrary to any speculations that it may be "Vulcan"), that sort of thing constitutes both an irrational/illogical position and an inability to apply critical thinking skills, (despite unsupported claims to the the contrary).  Unless you're an alien precurser to invasion from the planet "Contrarian", your contentions practically refute themselves. Simply denying your own words won't confer plausibility upon them.

...follow this chain (in the correct order this time, not juxtaposed as you indicated above):

earliest statement in reply to a post of yours:  "I didn't exactly imply that my critical thinking capabilities were applied to my belief ..."
next statement in a separate paragraph referencing new information in a previous paragraph that was a reply to your earlier post:   "... I gave indication that I do apply it to my belief ..."
It is amazing what happens when you actually put them in the order they appeared.

Your mutually-contradictory statements were addressed in the sequential order in which you posted them.  Wriggle, squirm, or writhe you are unable to deceive since your own posted words betray you.

I have noticed on a few occasions you display sequence and flow discrepancies.

If so, indicate them by precise contextual quotes.  The example given above was false and did not constitute any out-of-sequence or "flow" discrepancies.  Since you've elected to make this claim, the burden of proof by actual evidence falls to you.

Although not a particularly subtle observation on my part, surely you're aware that squirrels are attracted to nuts ...

I would be the last to insist that I was sane.

Perhaps second-to-last.

[Abrupt]

Yes, that is the token response that believers give.  It just sounds like an excuse if you ask me.  One doesn't need to read the "Cliff's Notes" of what is wrong with the Bible on some site to be convinced; just read the Bible on your own from start to finish, and if you don't walk away repulsed, your need for a security blanket surpasses your own logical ability.

Just make sure that when you read the bible that you actually study it, particularly to the parts that seem difficult to you.  At least use a concordance, such as 'Strongs' and to be better look at some of the various translations and reasoning's for the usage and understand that some words in use in modern Bible's do not exist in the Hebrew and Aramaic and Greek of the time.  Understand that all of it isn't meant for everyone. 

Your only guaranteed life is a terrible thing to waste running around believing in a bunch of falsehoods.  Also, some of the rubbish a believer adheres to can actually be harmful; not only for them, but for others around them.

If a belief comforts someone, whether it is true or false, is that bad, especially, as you seem to suggest, that our existence is but a fleeting dream?  Every belief can be harmful.

Ha, too funny.  Plenty of smart people can compartmentalize their thoughts/beliefs and be incredibly intelligent in one instance and incredibly stupid in another.  We all decide what's most important: the actual truth (regardless of what we wish it would be), or a safe haven for our primitive fears surrounding purpose, death, etc.

I agree with you entirely here on how we can all be both intelligent and stupid.  We all do decide what is most important -- for ourselves, but notice you are also deciding what is important for others and surely you can understand the problems of that (would you enter another's dreams as they slept and dictate their actions?  Would you force another to play a game according to your rules when it was a game that we must all ultimately play alone?).  I understand that others actions can influence those not involve, but if they cannot live to their pursuits and must instead conform to yours, then how can they truly live this one shot instantaneous existence that has no substance or permanence or relevance or meaning -- other than personal enjoyment (as I believe you have defined it -- but correct me if I am wrong here).

[Abrupt]

There is absolutely zero contradiction in my statements.
"... I gave indication that I do apply it {critical thinking} to my belief ..."
There is no contrary statements being made by me.
thereby " ... making a connection between critical thinking and belief where no such connection was ever directly indicated"
I will absolutely agree that those were the things I said.  I will also absolutely state that there was no contradiction in anything I said.

The "logical error" you're looking for lies within the two contrary, (and therefore, mutually-exclusive), assertions you just made, above.  
Specifically, that "... I gave indication that I do apply it to my belief ..." and you thereby " ... making a connection between critical thinking and belief where no such connection was ever directly indicated" and "I didn't exactly imply that my critical thinking capabilities were applied to my belief ...".  As you can see from your own statements within this post, you first indicated that you applied critical thinking to your belief, followed that with a statement that there was no such connection being made as to that application and then contradicted yourself by asserted that you didn't "imply" what you'd just asserted. Simply denying your own words won't confer plausibility upon them.

On my planet, (which is earth - contrary to any speculations that it may be "Vulcan"), that sort of thing constitutes both an irrational/illogical position and an inability to apply critical thinking skills, (despite unsupported claims to the the contrary).  Unless you're an alien precurser to invasion from the planet "Contrarian", your contentions practically refute themselves. Simply denying your own words won't confer plausibility upon them.

...follow this chain (in the correct order this time, not juxtaposed as you indicated above):

earliest statement in reply to a post of yours:  "I didn't exactly imply that my critical thinking capabilities were applied to my belief ..."
next statement in a separate paragraph referencing new information in a previous paragraph that was a reply to your earlier post:   "... I gave indication that I do apply it to my belief ..."
It is amazing what happens when you actually put them in the order they appeared.

Your mutually-contradictory statements were addressed in the sequential order in which you posted them.  Wriggle, squirm, or writhe you are unable to deceive since your own posted words betray you.

I have noticed on a few occasions you display sequence and flow discrepancies.

If so, indicate them by precise contextual quotes.  The example given above was false and did not constitute any out-of-sequence or "flow" discrepancies.  Since you've elected to make this claim, the burden of proof by actual evidence falls to you.

Although not a particularly subtle observation on my part, surely you're aware that squirrels are attracted to nuts ...

I would be the last to insist that I was sane.

Perhaps second-to-last.

Here you go, drawn out so you can more easily see it:

[falcon9]

Here you go, drawn out so you can more easily see it:

No, my virus software won't open a suspicious .png file extension.
Doubtless you are continuing to argue a moot point of contention.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

[Abrupt]

Here you go, drawn out so you can more easily see it:

No, my virus software won't open a suspicious .png file extension.
Doubtless you are continuing to argue a moot point of contention.

“The meme for blind faith secures its own perpetuation by the simple unconscious expedient of discouraging rational inquiry.”
-- Richard Dawkins

I agree that it is moot, but you are the one that brought it up and put up the challenge so deal with it.

results of virus scan upon the image:  https://www.virustotal.com/file/b0faa7cfa248643409006c943b8ef1f9828869c1e6bcedb2b258b53258c4eb9a/analysis/1339005773/