What is the difference between a bias ... we all have them ... and an ideology ..... are the righteous loonies not engaging their ideology rather than personal bias ?? .... Does brainwashing distort the data ....
Izzy and the big philosophical questions...
- Thread starter MuzztheEagle
- Start date
-
We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
What is the difference between a bias ... we all have them ... and an ideology ..... are the righteous loonies not engaging their ideology rather than personal bias ?? .... Does brainwashing distort the data ....
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
The concept of a golden rule comes from self preservation. And I would challenge @mozgrame to give me scenario that I couldn't answer using the rule and logic (in some cases there is no single answer).
Bias and social constructs are far more complicated. Where did they come from? Were there other motives at play when someone decided them? Are they acceptable to all of society and if not is it then one rule for some and another for others?
mozgrame
Engorged member
My old man used to ask the same question...worded differently. If friction causes heat...how long would a blue cattle dog have to root a billy can full of water before it boiled?
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
I would suggest that ideologies are the result of bias and fallacies. In particular; the appeal to authority, bandwagon and appeal to emotion fallacies. Once established it's even harder to get rid of an ideology thanks to bias.
For me, the only way to make a decision is through logic, reasoning and fair and balanced research. Without it you aren't deciding anything you are simply letting others decide for you. Yes, I will let others make decisions for me on some issues but it is always wise to consider how bias will skew how you feel about things.
Humans think they are far smarter than the reality and its why we have people convinced in thousands of ridiculous religions and political ideals that we are now cursed with. It's also why we have posters on Silvertails debating the gang crises in Western Sydney with only a little knowledge on the subject and why Tom Wright would have brought us endless premierships for the next two decades if he hadn't left.
Last edited:
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
More physics than philosophical (so much easier to answer):
https://www.quora.com/If-kinetic-energy-is-converted-into-thermal-energy-how-hard-do-I-have-to-slap-a-chicken-to-cook-it
2.3 million slaps if the maths checks out and depending on how hard you slap it
mozgrame
Engorged member
In regards to the golden rule...I was showing that Christian morality is not based on it. To think you could base a moral foundation on a paradox is ridiculous. “We should all compromise so no one has to compromise.”
At best it’s perhaps a useful way to frame a moral dilemma but it’s neither golden nor a rule. Dilemmas masquerading as principles are a big part of the problem with how humans handle conflict. The "rule" tricks us into thinking there’s a problem-solving formula when there isn’t.
A nation of people living under a moral foundation based on the golden rule would have to be either 100% indoctrinated, slaves or zombies. And the leaders of that country would be most likely radical lunatics for embracing a paradox as a moral standard. It could only ever lead to civil war. Or worse....
At best it’s perhaps a useful way to frame a moral dilemma but it’s neither golden nor a rule. Dilemmas masquerading as principles are a big part of the problem with how humans handle conflict. The "rule" tricks us into thinking there’s a problem-solving formula when there isn’t.
A nation of people living under a moral foundation based on the golden rule would have to be either 100% indoctrinated, slaves or zombies. And the leaders of that country would be most likely radical lunatics for embracing a paradox as a moral standard. It could only ever lead to civil war. Or worse....
mozgrame
Engorged member
Reads like you think we need some good, strong and sensible leadership to bring us out of the filthy quagmire (giggity) that we find ourselves in. The kind of leadership that can guide the senseless masses into the light.
I think you'll find that there is no way that everyone on the planet is as logical, reasoning, fair and balanced as you claim to be. That's why the world is a pretty big mess...even after all these years and our claim (as humans) to be soooo much more intelligent in this day and age.
Grab yourself the concise oxford dictionary and look up the meanings for some of the "tools" we use today to "better ourselves and help us to become more intelligent".
After all these years using such tools as rationalism, logic, academic, philosophy, humanism, psychology, intellectualism....here we are...still committing worldwide atrocities and commenting on things we have no firm grasp of...be that gangs in Sydney or religious belief. That's human nature. Fundamentally flawed...where have I read that before?? lol
From the little man with an over inflated ego that thinks he'll become the next Billy Graham...all the way to the little man with the over inflated ego that wants to become the next Matt Dillahunty.
You should write a book. "Muzz's Kampf".
Other than that...you could give Hinduism a go! I'd recommend a book I have on Shiva Advaita philosophy by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj...I Am That. You might find peace there??
Last edited:
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
Hey, I never claimed to be any less failliable than any other human. I'm simply tired of being told that one opinion is as valid as any other and that so and so is right because that's their right. Why not aim for a more understanding and logical debate rather than yelling opinions at one another. If you can suggest a better way to do that then I'm all ears.Reads like you think we need some good, strong and sensible leadership to bring us out of the filthy quagmire (giggity) that we find ourselves in. The kind of leadership that can guide the senseless masses into the light.
I think you'll find that there is no way that everyone on the planet is as logical, reasoning, fair and balanced as you claim to be. That's why the world is a pretty big mess...even after all these years and our claim (as humans) to be soooo much more intelligent in this day and age.
Grab yourself the concise oxford dictionary and look up the meanings for some of the "tools" we use today to "better ourselves and help us to become more intelligent".
After all these years using such tools as rationalism, logic, academic, philosophy, humanism, psychology, intellectualism....here we are...still committing worldwide atrocities and commenting on things we have no firm grasp of...be that gangs in Sydney or religious belief. That's human nature. Fundamentally flawed...where have I read that before?? lol
From the little man with an over inflated ego that thinks he'll become the next Billy Graham...all the way to the little man with the over inflated ego that wants to become the next Matt Dillahunty.
You should write a book. "Muzz's Kampf".
Other than that...you could give Hinduism a go! I'd recommend a book I have on Shiva Advaita philosophy by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj...I Am That. You might find peace there??
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
Moz, as you seem to disagree to a solely logical (and empathetic) society would you be willing to suggest what you think is the best solution?
Captain Moondog
Absolute Superstar
mozgrame
Engorged member
There is no solution.
No two people will ever be completely in agreeance on every issue. Not even in a tight relationship like marriage. There can never be an entirely empathetic society...let alone a 100% logical one...ever. It can't happen.
There's been a funny old theory floating around for a while now that man is fundamentally flawed. History shows that this is spot on.
Even if you instigated a one world political system (Christians would applaud you for that. Anti Christ...end of these flawed times and all that) you would never get everyone to be happy in it. A one world religion would suffer the same inevitable decline.
This life we travel through is rough and fearsome (and you and I have it pretty easy compared to some other people around the world)...so I would suggest the target to aim for would be the most peaceful path.
Given that religion has caused far less grief and fatality in the world historically than when man runs roughshod...it seems logical to adopt their TRUE ethos. Peace, humility, empathy and love.
Atheistic non tolerance won't help because that worldview just mirrors the worldview of the non tolerant religious bigots of the world. (Who are just as puzzling to me!)
There is no "final solution" to the problem of man's nature. Man can't "fix" himself on a global scale...day to day events prove he can't even do it on a local scale.
Again...that's why the golden rule would never work as a moral foundation. Are you willing to lower your expectations to support mine? I should do unto you as you should do unto me only works if we both want the exact...to the finest detail...same thing.
Good luck getting 7 billion people to agree on everything...all the time.
Last edited:
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
So we should continue on our current path of shouting opinions until people are up in arms (again)? And in some cases even fan those flames?
I'm not suggesting that everyone needs to be right and share the same belief. What I have said and will repeat is that people need to be able to justify their beliefs through rational explanations. This takes empathy, on both sides and like I said, I am trying to improve my own ability in this area.
In the world of social media and instant information we have become convinced that our opinion is just as valid as any others and it is simply untrue.
I have already stated this point more than once and I do not expect it to change. What I do hope to change is our understanding of that fact.
I would never suggest such a thing. It actually implies a level of bias - that I believe there is a single solution to things. I'm not preaching that I'm preaching the idea that people need to be respected as we would want to be respected but that is not the same for beliefs. Beliefs require justification, else we can justify anything that suits our own selfish desires and fears.
Again I agree and I intend to give individuals the upmost respect but that respect does not include ideas which are based on lies and flawed logic.
Please provide evidence for the idea that the world would have experienced less harm without religion. And the idea that the heart of religion is peace, humility, empathy and love, I have plenty of evidence that contradicts this claim.
I have no ill will towards those of faith. You can believe whatever you choose - until it impacts on others.
Again, I don't care about what people believe as much as why they believe it. We live in an age of misinformation, lies and opinion all packaged as fact. Yet many do nothing to teach children and each other about the importance of critical thinking. If we continue with the idea that one opinion is as valid as the next then intolerance will come to a head and it will end badly - for all of us.
What's more, how many people have quit the site in past years because they we sick having opinions yelled at them and not allowing for a rational discussion.
mozgrame
Engorged member
It seems you think you have an idea on how to solve the problem then. If you can pinpoint the problems, you must have an idea on a solution. Can you boil it down and give it to me in a nutshell please?
You're insistence on showing more empathy is admirable...but you seem to dodge humility. To assume you are more intelligent than the next person is a character fault that is very unappealing. To insist that others must conform to your worldview is nonsensical.
Realisticly ...as a society...how can you believe you could make decisions for say, 1 million people and believe it won't have any form of negative impact on any one of them...for any reason? Therefore...your belief in what is right could be impacting negatively on someone, even if only 1 person. So your beliefs would be immoral by your own standards.
As for the "idea" that religion is worse than a world free of religion...look at history. Look at the present moment. In the 20th century, atheist regimes have killed 3 times more people in peace time than those killed in all the wars combined. More than 93% of all the wars in human history have had no relation to religion (Muslim extremists are not religious folk. I promise to go into this in great detail soon. Time is not on my side tonight sorry)
You speak of critical thinking...but you only use it to suit your needs and to acquire your wanted result to try and prove your point. You speak of tolerance...but you refuse to believe those you consider ignorant are entitled to it. The danger of your thinking is that you are convinced you are correct and that you just need to educate others.
The Christian worldview is a far better option than what you're entertaining. Please don't make the mistake Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and the like make. All religions are not the same.
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
No, I have never claimed to be able to solve the world's problems. I have one issue, which frequently presents on this site as well as today's media and politics: That one's beliefs are just as valid as any other regardless of the reasoning behind it. In itself this doesn't really matter and even on this site I don't really care (until the name calling starts). But when these beliefs start to impact negatively on the lives of others then should we sit ideally by and hope that it goes away? Call out others as ignorant and let the name calling start? I am suggesting the ideas themselves be judged on their own merit and explained by those who are making the claim.
When have I done this (other than possibly to call out a troll who was unwilling to ). I have continuosly suggested that ideas are to be scrutinised, not people and have admitted that I am as of guilty of accepting fallacy and bias as any other human. I have never stated that others should commit to an ideology - unless you want to consider the concept of questioning ones own beliefs and thought processes as an ideology. All I am suggesting is that people need to utilise more introspection and objective thought and if you think there is something wrong with that then you can rule out a good chunk of the world's religions (and Indian Gurus). This whole point is little more than ad hominem.
When did I say this, when did I ever say I had a solution? I said I had a means reach my own decision and rather than having one decided for me. Why would this imply that I would then impose this decision on others - I never said that. I said people needed to be able to justify their decisions. You have simply built a strawman.
Can't wait!
Again ad hominem, you target my character in attempt to undermine my argument. How can you know that I only use it to prove a point. Have you asked me about any of my actual beliefs or my background and experience? How did you reach this conclusion? When have I refused to believe the thoughts of others (when they have provided reasoning)? What view do I hold, that you think I am so convinced of?
But please do let me know if and where you think I failed in my critical thinking and I will retract my statement and endeavour to do better. I'm only human after all.
And which Christian worldview is that? In what why do you think my beliefs are so contradictory? And how would you know what the majority of my beliefs are? I don't recall you asking.
P.S. I think you should lay of the Nazi references for a while. I think they are a pretty big clue to your true intent here.
Last edited:
mozgrame
Engorged member
You are a proud atheist aren't you? You claim to be...you certainly detest religion and put the boot in regularly. I'm trying to figure out which kind of atheist you are. Are you the Sam Harris type? I hope not.
Guilty! My methods of inquiry were definitely underhanded lol.
So...to which branch of atheism do you belong and what happens to a person who can't back up their beliefs with enough evidence for your satisfaction? Do you write them off as ignorant...or simply dismiss them with disdain...like you did with Bozo?
Guilty! My methods of inquiry were definitely underhanded lol.
So...to which branch of atheism do you belong and what happens to a person who can't back up their beliefs with enough evidence for your satisfaction? Do you write them off as ignorant...or simply dismiss them with disdain...like you did with Bozo?
Is this not a bias of yours ... ?
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
Let's try to discuss one issue at a time.
Would you like to discuss my (non) beliefs on God? Or my interaction with Bozo?
MuzztheEagle
Bencher
Sure, this is a possibility. Let's discuss. Do you have any questions or suggestions that could point to a flaw in my thinking? Like I said; I think the alternatives to a logical way of deciding things results in another making the decision for you. Is there an alternative that you think I could have missed or assessed incorrectly. I'm happy to have my mind changed, it would mean I learnt something
Forenote ... apologies to Artie ... it has been 30 years since I read the book and I am paraphrasing from an unreliable memory ..
So @MuzztheEagle and old mate Mozzie we return to Athur Koestler ... who in his book, Janus from memory opined that the root cause of Man's problems lies in the fact that our brains evolved ....
By this he means that ancient forefathers had only a reptilian brain ... to which was later added the frontal vortex etc ... but throughout evolution the remnant of the reptilian brain remained ... and that in modern man the functions of logic and intellect are housed in the frontal lobe whilst instincts and emotions remain a function of the rear .... this he says has created a difference in the rate of devolment of the two functions ...
He cites as an example ... a logical, rational, well adjusted man like our old mate Muzz .... who can consider most situations dispassionatley and calmly ... suddenly turning into a murderous irrational beast because someone cuts him off on the highway ....
He produced a graph outlining the differing growth rates of Man's Intellectual V Emotional development over the past 2000 years .... as can be expected, the Intellectual development takes on an expotential curve over the past 100 years, from the first flight to landing on the moon as an example .... However, during the same time we have had WW1, WW2, Nazis, PolPot, Holocaust, Tutu genocides, Kim il jong, Vietnam, Jonestown, Taliban, Kevin Rudd etc ... so the Emotional development line is almost flat .....
He also gives the opinion that the most important date in history is the date of the first atomic blast on Hirosima .... prior to that date he concludes than Man had to consider his death as an individual .... after that date Man has had to consider his extinction as a species .... and he is not convinced the reptilian portion of our brain is up to the task .....
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
5 | 4 | 1 | 23 | 10 |
|
5 | 4 | 1 | 14 | 10 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 48 | 8 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 28 | 8 |
|
5 | 3 | 2 | 25 | 8 |
|
5 | 3 | 2 | 14 | 8 |
|
6 | 3 | 2 | 38 | 7 |
|
6 | 3 | 2 | 21 | 7 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | 37 | 6 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | 16 | 6 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | -13 | 6 |
|
5 | 2 | 3 | -15 | 6 |
|
6 | 3 | 3 | -36 | 6 |
|
6 | 2 | 4 | -5 | 4 |
|
6 | 2 | 4 | -7 | 4 |
|
5 | 0 | 5 | -86 | 2 |
|
6 | 1 | 5 | -102 | 2 |
