Religious Typology Quiz

NovoJank said:
Oh, I DEFINITELY agree that "morality" is a way to maintain the survival advantages groups provide to social animals like humans. We are on the same page.

(I just meant that everyone likes to consider their own motives superior to anyone else's :) )
Click to expand...

not me.

I know I am a sinner. I ask for forgiveness everyday.
and I seek to minimize my shittiness in my small way.

one way i seek to minimize my shittiness is to reject eugenics naziism.
 
NovoJank said:
Oh, let me clarify it for you. I generally like most of what he says about atheism. But I am in no way beholden to anything that he says about it.
I can LIKE your car but not need to drive it everywhere I go.

You suggested that I must agree with how Dawkins characterized belief with his "spectrum". I foundationally disagree for the reasons outlined. That doesn't mean I think Dawkins is therefore without any value. It just means that my atheism is not predicated on ANYTHING Dawkins says.
Click to expand...

Nobody said you did. I was simply curious why you claimed you didn't care on one hand then claimed you liked his book on the other.

Feel free to quote me where said that because I didn't. You did become upset when I pointed out weak and strong atheism are a matter of degrees, which was contrary to one of your other posts. Agreed your beliefs aren't dependent upon others. That goes for everyone.
 
NovoJank said:
Oh, I DEFINITELY agree that "morality" is a way to maintain the survival advantages groups provide to social animals like humans. We are on the same page.

(I just meant that everyone likes to consider their own motives superior to anyone else's :) )
Click to expand...

Agreed. Mass murder could be moral if it's to save the group. Lifeboat ethics; if a boat only holds 50 people before swamping, then it's moral to kill anyone else endangering the 50 already onboard plus row away and leave all those still in the water to die.
 
NovoJank said:
Well, given that I'm not emotional about this topic would seem to make this a moot point. But you insist on trying to characterize my point as somehow "emotional".

You may not be aware of this but this is a form of aggression. It demeans my point as being predicated on "emotionality" when it is anything but. I have clearly laid out my points quite pleasantly and have not experienced any anger or emotionalism about it.

I will gladly admit that people telling me what I think is annoying and will, in time, lead to a feeling of anger.
But it isn't there yet.

My emotional state or lack thereof is not related to the topic at hand.
Is it perhaps that you are getting overly emotional and angry?
Click to expand...
If you say so.

See? You're upset with the perception of aggression. Dude, get a fucking clue: all humans have emotion. To deny it is only fooling yourself. You and I can continue to agree to disagree on your presentation.

Being annoyed is an emotional response.

Disagreed. Emotion often gets in the way of logic. When people get defensive, they are defending their ideas, not logically assessing the the truth of what is being discussed. Sure, I'm human so I can have emotional responses too. Why do you think I'm becoming overly emotional or angry?
 
NovoJank said:
LOL. I don't have a PHd. I'm lucky to have made it out with my bachelors. That was enough for me.
Click to expand...
Thanks. It's a bit of an inside joke. JPP has a few people who claim to be medical doctors yet are anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers. One even recommends HCQ and Ivermectin over vaccinations and masks.

Another member claimed to have his PhD but became enraged and began acting like a pissed off teenager when questioned about it.

Some people, eh? LOL
 
NovoJank said:
OH, my apologies. I honestly didn't intend that to be the case. You just said QM was as weird as Newtonian mechanics and I was suggesting reasons that I disagreed.

Again, I meant no offense.
Click to expand...

People did not believe a one pound weight and a hundred pound weight fell as the same rate of speed. Galileo had to prove it. All of science will eventually contradict what people think is common sense.
 
NovoJank said:
I don't care if you have read someone mocking with it. I am using it to make a point. NOT to mock.

So why won't you address the point?
Click to expand...

Einstein and Bohr argued for decades about the nature of reality and the meaning of experience
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...Religious-Typology-Quiz&p=5493742#post5493742

but you wanted to trot out the invisible unicorn rhetorical trick to characterize people who are uncertain of our capacity to be omniscient and grasp certain and true knowledge about all reality
 
BidenPresident said:
NovoJank said:
OH, my apologies. I honestly didn't intend that to be the case. You just said QM was as weird as Newtonian mechanics and I was suggesting reasons that I disagreed.

Again, I meant no offense.
Click to expand...
People did not believe a one pound weight and a hundred pound weight fell as the same rate of speed. Galileo had to prove it. All of science will eventually contradict what people think is common sense.
Click to expand...
Fact trumps opinion every time. :thup:
 
Cypress said:
Einstein and Bohr argued for decades about the nature of reality and the meaning of experience
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...Religious-Typology-Quiz&p=5493742#post5493742

but you wanted to trot out the invisible unicorn rhetorical trick to characterize people who are uncertain of our capacity to be omniscient and grasp certain and true knowledge about all reality
Click to expand...

Have I done something to offend? Honest the ONLY reason I used a "unicorn" was just for silliness sake. NOT intended to be a mockery of you or anything. It was just a goofy addition. If I had just said "invisible widget" would that have been better? Would you then have addressed the point I was trying to make?

If that's the case, please just insert the word "widget" where you see unicorn and see if you are able to respond to my point as it was intended which was totally innocently.

Thanks and sorry?
 
Doc Dutch said:
Thanks. It's a bit of an inside joke. JPP has a few people who claim to be medical doctors yet are anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers. One even recommends HCQ and Ivermectin over vaccinations and masks.

Another member claimed to have his PhD but became enraged and began acting like a pissed off teenager when questioned about it.

Some people, eh? LOL
Click to expand...

OK. Got it. Thanks for the context.
 
NovoJank said:
Have I done something to offend? Honest the ONLY reason I used a "unicorn" was just for silliness sake. NOT intended to be a mockery of you or anything. It was just a goofy addition. If I had just said "invisible widget" would that have been better? Would you then have addressed the point I was trying to make?

If that's the case, please just insert the word "widget" where you see unicorn and see if you are able to respond to my point as it was intended which was totally innocently.

Thanks and sorry?
Click to expand...

It's a common meme used by atheists to troll anyone with a hint of religion. Invisible unicorns, Sky Daddy, tea pots, etcs.

Earlier, you posted that asserting you were being emotional demeaned your point about atheism. Hopefully you can see how asserting that people believe in invisible unicorns or Sky Daddies does the same thing. :)
 
Doc Dutch said:
It's a common meme used by atheists to troll anyone with a hint of religion. Invisible unicorns, Sky Daddy, tea pots, etcs.

Earlier, you posted that asserting you were being emotional demeaned your point about atheism. Hopefully you can see how asserting that people believe in invisible unicorns or Sky Daddies does the same thing. :)
Click to expand...

That's why I apologized and tried to clarify that it was NOT intended that way. I honestly did NOT mean it to be demeaning. Just more goofy than anything. But not intended as an insult. I hope that Cypress is able to address the point using the "widget" approach. The point is what I was going after, not offense.
 
NovoJank said:
Have I done something to offend? Honest the ONLY reason I used a "unicorn" was just for silliness sake. NOT intended to be a mockery of you or anything. It was just a goofy addition. If I had just said "invisible widget" would that have been better? Would you then have addressed the point I was trying to make?

If that's the case, please just insert the word "widget" where you see unicorn and see if you are able to respond to my point as it was intended which was totally innocently.

Thanks and sorry?
Click to expand...

I think the invisible unicorn rhetorical trick is widely used to invalidate and belittle anyone who is uncertain that all true, certain, and omniscient knowledge about reality can be found in a test tube or particle accelerator.
 
NovoJank said:
That's why I apologized and tried to clarify that it was NOT intended that way. I honestly did NOT mean it to be demeaning. Just more goofy than anything. But not intended as an insult. I hope that Cypress is able to address the point using the "widget" approach. The point is what I was going after, not offense.
Click to expand...

Sorry, not saying you did. Text is among the shittiest forms of human communication because there's no facial expressions, body language, inflection, tone, etc. It's one reason why I like using memes and emojis as enhancers to posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top