I don't have the time to go look through a thread for things that offend you. How do I know what offends you? I've been asking you to point out examples because only you can do that.
That's an interesting addition! I like that. I'm on board, 3 more and we'll add it to the rules.More than 5 likes. Do I get points now?
Thanks for elaborating on your take on expression, I get exactly what you’re saying. And you’re right, I was confusing grief for sentiment in my animal behavior examples. That is a really interesting study with the faces on tips jars! I know a few people who use tip jars and I’m going to pass this along
If we can not agree that some beliefs are valid while others are false, and that it is important to distinguish between them, then I think the only thing we can agree on is that further discussion is pointless.
Wait, so school is unfair to stupid people in general but giving different tests to different students is NOT unfair? So if I give easier tests to some of my favorite students and extremely hard tests to other students in the same class, that's not unfair? You have a very distorted view of fairness and bias.
I personally feel that if we do not understand the way reality works then we can not identify what is important about life. I think most religions are an attempt to understand what is real and what is important. Religions at heart are an effort to provide a path to personal wholeness and social coherence, but most use mythical outdated maps. It only serves to make things worse when people fail to recognize mythical teachings and take them literally or pervert them into profit and control. The best understanding we have of our world today comes from an evidential approach to truth. I believe an evidential understanding of the universe can provide a clear connection to the things we value in religion. It can offer hope for the future rather than fear. It can provide gratitude for the past rather than guilt, and it can furnish inspiration in the face of challenge. All of this comes with the added benefit of it being the truth, which makes it much harder to manipulate into profit and control. I feel that an evidential interpretation of reality is the most responsible and prudent approach in today's world, where knowledge has progressed past myths.You are correct, further discussion is pointless. This thread is extremely bias even though you all say other wise. The fact that you continue to misinterpret what i say and misjudge me as a person based on me not agreeing or going against things you say is preposterous. I will continue to seem as an illogical incoherent person to most of you all and that i do not mind.
thank you all for you time.
I enjoyed the exchange. I apologize for not being able to link to the study I mentioned. It is documented by Richard Wiseman in his book quirkology. His website lists this study involving charity boxes which you also might find interesting.Thanks for elaborating on your take on expression, I get exactly what you’re saying. And you’re right, I was confusing grief for sentiment in my animal behavior examples. That is a really interesting study with the faces on tips jars! I know a few people who use tip jars and I’m going to pass this along
The catalyst for my interest in cognitive science was a book written in the early 70s by a Princeton Professor named Julian Jaynes. He wrote a fascinating (although highly controversial) book entitled, ‘The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind’. In it, he writes about how, before humans invented consciousness (before the advent of language that was evolved enough to generate metaphor and analogue models), humans would make idols of their dead rulers and loved ones in order to invoke audio and visual hallucinations of them. This doesn’t often happen with modern consciousness, and when it does we label it as schizophrenic. Perhaps keepsakes are a left over yearning for this process. In any case, one can see how this can be manipulated…
I often talk about human perception being prone to mistakes, and how it's important to consider this when judging evidence and beliefs. Richard's work provided us with a great video to demonstrate one of these mistakes.
Why did you manipulate my words? I said different tests. You made the assumption that I meant the same test rearranged differently to avoid cheating when I never said that. I actually meant different questions. As soon as you introduce variability, you can increase bias. It's funny that you just defended the actions that you thought were merely to prevent cheating as fair yet you still maintain that schools are inherently biased against stupid people. Either they are fair or they are biased, which is it?
How is that unfair?
I did tell you but you don't seem to be able to grasp the concept. Why are you unwilling to answer in your own words?
I know this thread is not biased.
I said manipulate.
One more time. You made an ASSUMPTION about what I meant by different. You can make different tests fair, or different tests very biased. I can give each student the same questions in different order to prevent cheating, or I can choose inherently different questions, which was what I meant from the first post. Different questions for some students can certainly introduce bias. If you don't understand that basic concept, then you don't understand the word and you should just stop replying because you are making yourself the fool.
My intention was merely to make sure I understood the meaning of your post. If I was correct about your calling me a suck up for sending kudos to Pada, then that seems like the kind of thing Pada's rules were attempting to avoid. I (and others who are atheist as I am) have posted certain beliefs or assertions on these debate forums, and I have been lucky enough to be corrected by Heis, MP, and others. This is fantastic, as it helps to keep my thinking process on the right track. I do not choose to feel that, 'they are all against me', or, 'they're making me look stupid', I read, verify what they say, and take their assistance in the manner in which it was intended, to help. The fact that you have posted many times since declaring this debate is pointless tells me that, deep down, you are looking for answers outside of your current beliefs, which is great. If you weren't, logically you wouldn't keep posting. After all, how many other believers are here having the balls to capitalize on the opportunity presented? I was once (as a lot of us probably were) deathly afraid when first going through the process of giving up religious belief for a better understanding of reality, but trust me, you'll never regret it once you do...