I know I want to teach my own children logic as soon as they can understand it, but what about having a class in school about it. Probably done in highschool or middle school like a health class or an elective.
I've noticed english classes teaching things like ad methods and science classes expressing logical ideas, but I'm not sure if this is really good enough. Now I wouldn't expect college level out of these students so it might just be called critical thinking, but I think a basic understanding of arguments would improve a students all around education.
Something to push for? Something for people to be against?
I have been researching things and thinking for the future (job, projects, etc.)
This trend will most likely continue, but I should be come more active at some point.
If you wanted to know what I've been researching I've been looking into Linux, Firearms, Electric Vehicles, and Programming. If you got a link or advice feel free to go nuts.
For a week I looked into reptiles, but thats not important.
The idea of right and wrong depends on the point of view to begin with so it is subjective by its very nature. A lot of people like to throw around an idea of morality or immorality, but to being to decide who is more or less moral they need a moral system. Most of the people in the world do have such a system outlining their codes, laws, or whatever the hell they want to call them.
If I was a betting man, which I am, I'd bet they are using a christian or what is perceived as a christian system. So basically if you're human you're a sinner, immoral, and going to hell. I could go into that more, but that is a whole other ball game.
At my college they had a "debate." I use quotes because a few of the speaks wanted to call it a discussion. I thought it was interesting, but the ID side was lacking. One it wasn't arguing for ID it was arguing for young earth creationism and the man didn't know science. Two the other person arguing for it was more of a stand in. It was like arguing for gun control when you really aren't for it.
Young earth creationism isn't really what ID would be. I do think it is a re-labeling of creationism, but most of the people who argue for it don't use the bible to date the globe. (he did)
I say he didn't know science because he tried to use the carbon-14 complaint and people finding clams on mount Everest. I person in middle school should know how mountains form and there are other things people use besides carbon-14.
I was clicking random internet aids this morning. For some reason a lot of my favorate sites have religious aids and I click on the interesting ones. You know the kind are like "PROOF FOR GOD!" or "HERE IS JESUS!" or "THEIST SLUTS XXX!" Ok I made up the last one, but it might be interesting to see that kind of porn.
Anyway, I clicked on titled "Pagan Religion Secrets" and it lead to this.
I would have called it Pagan In a Box, but they have a fancy name of course...
It starts off by saying, "You have been guided here today for a reason. That reason will become clear as I tell you the amazing story about the power inside you..." Like I haven't heard that shit before
What should a rational responder look into if they want to be able to respond rationally? The simple answer is everything, but no one person can know all so we should probably narrow down a few points. I think the way we should go about this is by having basics and give a starting point. Most of this will center around an atheist view point and this is something that should have input from others, mainly when it comes to specific areas.
A. Logic: This is the most basic foundation for finding knowledge and evaluation ideas.
B. God Arguments: There are many(300+), but you need to know a few common ones and how to break them down.
It was interesting... I was honestly wanting him to show me his claims. I started it in a personal chat so he could talk to me without random comments from people, thinking this would make it easier for him.
voiderest: hey grav what is your claim
garyvit: Sapient is an idiot.
garyvit: That is my main claim.
voiderest: so how is he dumb?
garyvit: How is he not?
voiderest: aren't you the one making the claim here?
garyvit: Who says I can't ask questions.
voiderest: It looked like you wanted me to prove something
voiderest: So what is an example of him being an dumb?
"Do you believe in santa?" That is what my little sister just asked me. Yes she is little enough to have that belief, but I'm not going to lie to her so I told her no. She responded with slight shock and asked me why to which I was a jerk and said, "because." I didn't really feel like I debating her on santa when I'm hungry so I gave her a bit of a run around.
As I walked up the stairs she asked, "Well what happens to the cookies?" I said, "What happens when you eat cookies?" We did the same thing with the milk and she asked, "Can you prove santa isn't there?"
I stopped at that and acting confused said, "Why should I do that? Can you prove the cat isn't there?" We have two cats and a kitty so I just used that as an example. She said, "Well I can look there and see a cat," one of the cats was in the room. I pointed out that I didn't see a santa so she now wants to film him christmas eve.
I wrote this out early in the morning with no sleep before I forgot. Bear with me through the grammer. Is something sounds confusing or something could easly throw off my whole idea and seems out of place just point it out.
This is about the first cause argument, but also some what lays out my idea of existence. The idea is really just the reaction to a bad argument that showed me how certain assumptions are false ones.
The following is me arguing with thaprofessa3. I get a message from him asking me about a comment I left on someone else's video. They just sounded cures to me, but I guess was wrong. Its not like I'm having trouble though, but this guy can be a little frustrating forgetting about parts of my message...