[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am not open minded and have never pretended to be. It is the most horrific of all vices while masquerading as the chief of virtues. The perfect deception. [/quote]
You are a very good guy and I feel really bad for you.[/quote]
His stance has some peace-of-mind virtues. I hope he at least watched the video.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Olee, did you have a mirror in front of you as you were watching your own video?
edit BTW I be joking, kinda ; ) lol[/quote]
Did you watch the video?
To be open minded is to be constantly searching and nearly opinionless. Those things we believe most strongly are those on which we are least open minded.
A great read:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=54&chapid=500
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Olee, did you have a mirror in front of you as you were watching your own video?
edit BTW I be joking, kinda ; ) lol[/quote]
The irony… this was actually foreshadowed in the video.
[quote]byukid wrote:
To be open minded is to be constantly searching and nearly opinionless. Those things we believe most strongly are those on which we are least open minded.
A great read:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=54&chapid=500[/quote]
I will read it , but I disagree that being opened minded is opinionless . Being opened minded is having a grasp that one has the ability to be wrong and must listen to the other side to change or expand your opinion
the mathematician Gödel has demonstrated, or at least has proposed to demonstrate, that "no logical system can ever prove that it itself is a perfect system in the sense that it may not contain concealed self-contradictions. . . . This means that the human intelligence can never be sure of itself; it is not . .
This is a quote from your article , IMO it is nonsense. No system can prove it self perfect , because IMO no system is perfect . It is a form of constantly improving your opinion
LO[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I did not watch the video. I am working. I am responding to the still picture dialogue presented in this thread.
Your argument, if it is essentially what is represented by that opening dialogue of text, is fallacious. Basically what you are implying is that anyone who disagrees with your position–or the figure on the left of the video–is wrong by default. What you are discounting is the fact that YOU might be the one rehearsing your own prejudices when you respond, or argue.
Do you really believe that scientists and/or atheists are immune to that flaw? I am a scientist, and I have worked with them and drink with them, and relax with them. They are JUST AS GUILTY of that as “normal” people are. Sometimes they couch things in better, more erudite or obscure terms. Sometimes they are phrased just as poorly as everybody that video seems to be making fun of. And sometimes, believe it or not, these “experts” are even more retarded or prejudiced than relgious people.
Just because you don’t like the sound of something doesn’t mean theu might be right and you wrong. And just because someone is religious does not make them incapable or rational argument. And just because someone is a scientist does not make them immune to rehearsing their prejudices.[/quote]
LMAO! Watch the video. [/quote]
It is not available to stream on mobile. I am still limited to my phone. Of course I will watch it. It will have to wait for tomorrow/today when I have working internet on my computer, not phone.
[quote]Oleena wrote:
There have been too many logical fallacies on this site concerning religion and science to count, made by individuals allegedly on both sides of the argument. Hopefully, this helps everyone out.[/quote]
That vid makes a lot of sense. It sounds like that english dude that does the cosmology series on the discovery channel.
Anyhoo, when exchanging ideas, shooting the shit, or just fucking around in the internet, I always try to determine what someone is describing when the speak of belief. Sometimes it is hard to determine whether they are talking ideally or actually.
When people are speaking ideally or or about something that they wish were true, I handle it differently than when someone is describing what they actually believe. Sometimes they are one and the same, sometimes they aren’t.
Regardless of which, I don’t assume for even a moment that they should actually change what they believe based on my opinion of something or what they believe. Some folks do just fine in the world coping with what life has to offer based on these psychological constructs.
More often than not, there is really no need to de-construct a persons interface with the world, especially if you can’t replace it with a better one.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
the mathematician G�¶del has demonstrated, or at least has proposed to demonstrate, that "no logical system can ever prove that it itself is a perfect system in the sense that it may not contain concealed self-contradictions. . . . This means that the human intelligence can never be sure of itself; it is not . .
This is a quote from your article , IMO it is nonsense. No system can prove it self perfect , because IMO no system is perfect . It is a form of constantly improving your opinion[/quote]
Well that’s what he’s saying- human intellect can never be a hundred per cent certain of itself. And referring back- opinionless was the wrong word. He says something along the lines of, “So must an open mind then be an empty mind? Yes, unless it is a searching mind.” So if you claim to be open minded you need to constantly be seeking to learn rather than promulgating what you have learned.
Does that make sense? I think so. The point is, close mindedness and open mindedness are neither virtues nor vices except when carried to extremes.
[quote]byukid wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
the mathematician G�?�¶del has demonstrated, or at least has proposed to demonstrate, that "no logical system can ever prove that it itself is a perfect system in the sense that it may not contain concealed self-contradictions. . . . This means that the human intelligence can never be sure of itself; it is not . .
This is a quote from your article , IMO it is nonsense. No system can prove it self perfect , because IMO no system is perfect . It is a form of constantly improving your opinion[/quote]
Well that’s what he’s saying- human intellect can never be a hundred per cent certain of itself. And referring back- opinionless was the wrong word. He says something along the lines of, “So must an open mind then be an empty mind? Yes, unless it is a searching mind.” So if you claim to be open minded you need to constantly be seeking to learn rather than promulgating what you have learned.
Does that make sense? I think so. The point is, close mindedness and open mindedness are neither virtues nor vices except when carried to extremes.[/quote]
I am not sure I understand you or not I think that being close minded is a sign of lacking intelligence , just my opinion.
I think having no opinion is due to having no care about the given subject. Most people that care about something form an opinion and if the have an open mind than they open to change
that opinion
I think Politics is capitalizing on peoples close mindedness.
“The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do, you’ve simply abdicated the responsibility to think.” - William Buckley
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
“The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do, you’ve simply abdicated the responsibility to think.” - William Buckley
[/quote]
William Buckley is certainly entitled to his opinion 
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
“The purpose of an open mind is to close it, on particular subjects. If you never do, you’ve simply abdicated the responsibility to think.” - William Buckley
[/quote]
IMO if you closed your to any subject then you would be held to the responsibility of never even misspeaking
Yes I did. Do I need to take a quiz?
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
Olee, did you have a mirror in front of you as you were watching your own video?
edit BTW I be joking, kinda ; ) lol[/quote]
Did you watch the video?[/quote]
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< Well, you asked what I feel, not what I think is logically possible, so I’ll answer you with a more emotional answer than I normally would.
I feel that if there is a god power, the closest idea of what he might be is well described by the Taoist texts. They don’t describe a thinking, feeling, decision-making entity, but rather a universal pattern/force that underlies everything. This force is universal; it excludes nothing, chooses nothing, drives everything, and cannot be avoided. For this reason, nothing contrary to it could ever exist.[/quote]In short, if there’s a god at all he can never be wrong? I mean any being that might be wrong ain’t God wouldn’t ya say?
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Oleena wrote:<<< Well, you asked what I feel, not what I think is logically possible, so I’ll answer you with a more emotional answer than I normally would.
I feel that if there is a god power, the closest idea of what he might be is well described by the Taoist texts. They don’t describe a thinking, feeling, decision-making entity, but rather a universal pattern/force that underlies everything. This force is universal; it excludes nothing, chooses nothing, drives everything, and cannot be avoided. For this reason, nothing contrary to it could ever exist.[/quote]In short, if there’s a god at all he can never be wrong? I mean any being that might be wrong ain’t God wouldn’t ya say?[/quote]
Universal force =/= anthropomorphic deity.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
IMO if you closed your to any subject then you would be held to the responsibility of never even misspeaking [/quote]
So your mind isn’t closed any on subject?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
So your mind isn’t closed any on subject?
[/quote]
No it is probably closed to a degree on many subjects . I think being opened minded requires me to be ready to reevaluate all my opinions .
Let me ask you , do you feel any responsibility to tell the truth even though this is an anonymous forum . Would you consider it a lie to repeat on this forum something that is not truthful ?
[quote]Oleena wrote:
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I did not watch the video. I am working. I am responding to the still picture dialogue presented in this thread.
Your argument, if it is essentially what is represented by that opening dialogue of text, is fallacious. Basically what you are implying is that anyone who disagrees with your position–or the figure on the left of the video–is wrong by default. What you are discounting is the fact that YOU might be the one rehearsing your own prejudices when you respond, or argue.
Do you really believe that scientists and/or atheists are immune to that flaw? I am a scientist, and I have worked with them and drink with them, and relax with them. They are JUST AS GUILTY of that as “normal” people are. Sometimes they couch things in better, more erudite or obscure terms. Sometimes they are phrased just as poorly as everybody that video seems to be making fun of. And sometimes, believe it or not, these “experts” are even more retarded or prejudiced than relgious people.
Just because you don’t like the sound of something doesn’t mean theu might be right and you wrong. And just because someone is religious does not make them incapable or rational argument. And just because someone is a scientist does not make them immune to rehearsing their prejudices.[/quote]
LMAO! Watch the video. [/quote]
I watched the video. And I stand by my comments above after viewing it. The only difference is that you have been implying what I have said for a while in separate threads now, and that it is more subtle than you probably want to recognize, or perhaps you really do not recognize that this is a part of your thinking/postings. I suspect you knew that my original post had topical merit, but wanted to chastise me for not being able to watch the video a) at work without a computer connected to the internet and b) on a device to which it would not stream. I would appreciate a response to my original post now thank you.
“It is a classic debating trick to exaggerate and therefore misrepresent another person’s position.” You have been guilty of this on numerous occasions yourself.
“open-mindedness means agreeing with me”. Yes, and this is the single most widespread trick I run into. In my personal experience, it seems that those that lean to the left in political matters are almost certainly ready to use this trick, even if they don’t actually end up using it. I have run into more open-minded conservatives than I have liberals (although I am sure this is partly based on my geographical location!). The liberals I have met–and there are many–seem almost militant in their assertions that I should be more “open-minded” when they themselves are so close-minded that they are unable to carry on rational conversation with me. It should go without saying that the same is true for some conservatives I disagree with. However, on the whole I experience much more lividity and anger with liberals with whom I disagree.
The same is true in national print–by implication mostly of course since explicit mention would in most cases prevent publication of said piece. There are a number of conservatives I can point to that do the same thing of course. And there are a number of liberal thinkers I listen to for thoughtful opinions, as well as a number of left-leaning arguments I think carry weight. But, this has been my personal experience so far. I am sure “mileage” varies significantly with others.
Also RE: the people who will accept any unreliable story or testimony while being skeptical of science–I have met an equal number of scientists who are so stubborn as to refuse to even consider anything else. They are the flip side of the coin.
And, ironically, being “controlling, arrogant, and presumptuous” are faults that are extremely widespread in the science circles. As I said, often times they are simply hidden better behind technical or obscure words or terminology, or a facade of learnedness.
Are they more prevalent than the general populace? I don’t know. I somewhat doubt that, HOWEVER I believe it is in human nature to be this way and that it takes a continuous act of will to avoid it, which many many scientists do in fact lack. Most importantly, from my firsthand experiences I find it troubling that most people hold up scientists as some sort of group of super geniuses and often accept the word of scientists so uncritically, especially in the matters that science is LEAST suited to know definitively.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]byukid wrote:
To be open minded is to be constantly searching and nearly opinionless. Those things we believe most strongly are those on which we are least open minded.
A great read:
http://maxwellinstitute.byu.edu/publications/books/?bookid=54&chapid=500[/quote]
I will read it , but I disagree that being opened minded is opinionless . Being opened minded is having a grasp that one has the ability to be wrong and must listen to the other side to change or expand your opinion [/quote]
I disagree with that as well. That is called being apathetic. Or uninformed/new to the subject. Being “open-minded” is not being an evidence nazi–nor is it being so open-minded that you will accept most anything. However, most liberals I have met lump this together with “tolerance” (which has also been redefined in their minds from its original definition) and berate me for not accepting their too-broad and watered down definitions of this.
It bears remembering that critical thinking is NOT the same as being an advocate of the philosophy of skepticism. The philosophy of skepticism is in my view a flawed modality in any case, however–many people on here who consider themselves followers of science or atheists and “critical thinkers” are in fact more closely aligned with the actual philosophy of skepticism and are also much more close-minded than they would like to think.
There are a number who are not, and are both critically thinking and open minded atheists. And there are a large number of people out in the world who are both atheists and open-minded, and there are some from theistic circles as well. I am not intentionally picking on atheism and liberalism here. Two of my very favorite philosophers of all time are atheistic, and I enjoy learning from many more. And as I said I am also attuned to several very thoughtful and compelling. I am not attempting to turn this into another religion/atheism thread at ALL.
It bears remembering of course that I just said in the post prior to this that I have met with the same difficulties with some conservatives I have “talked” with (or more properly neo-conservatives). The same is most true for religious people as well.