Atheists outperform theists at nearly all reasoning skills

[ecco]

I suppose you meant to write:
I’ve noticed you don’t critique anything I say

Was that it?

I think he meant that you don't take justified criticism well.

 

[ecco]

I have been doing this for 20+ years now, day in and day out.

Does that include time in pre-school?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think he meant that you don't take justified criticism well.

Yes, I am working on that. Now look here:

Does that include time in pre-school?

I know I could be a 16 year old boy or an 80 year old woman. So you have sort of,a point, but you could be an advanced bot.
So here is something for you to consider:
If I can make sense of and show the limitations of the following quote and tie it to modern science, then maybe I have done this for some time:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.
Now you can also claim that I am not what I say and that you don't need to continue. You could also backtrack this exchange.

I mostly agree. There are a few points here and I don't agree with, but I don't think it's worth pointing them out and the majority is similar to my world-view if not a different perspective. Good talk.

Now ecco, I am still learning and I have an issue with how I behave in certain cases. I am working on that.

So what do you say - Protagoras and modern science?

 

[ecco]

I know I could be a 16 year old boy or an 80 year old woman. So you have sort of,a point, but you could be an advanced bot.

Dang. How did you figure that out?

So here is something for you to consider:
If I can make sense of and show the limitations of the following quote and tie it to modern science, then maybe I have done this for some time:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." Protagoras.

Who are you trying to impress? Do you think I, or anyone else, should be impressed by your belief that you can make sense of a quote by a long dead Greek?

Now you can also claim that I am not what I say and that you don't need to continue. You could also backtrack this exchange.

Are those really the only options I have? I don't have to be a philosopher or a scientist to know there are other options.

So what do you say - Protagoras and modern science?

Sure, show us how Protagoras relates to modern science. I get so impressed when philosophers know science.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Dang. How did you figure that out?

Neither you or I know who is on the other end of the Internet. Your point that I am not be who I say I am, also applies to you.

Who are you trying to impress? Do you think I, or anyone else, should be impressed by your belief that you can make sense of a quote by a long dead Greek?
Are those really the only options I have? I don't have to be a philosopher or a scientist to know there are other options.
Sure, show us how Protagoras relates to modern science. I get so impressed when philosophers know science.

So here it is: The humans species is the collection of similar, yet different genes and the effect of different nurture. That ends in Protagoras or if you like cognitive relativism.

It is simple.
The Truth is X as in one and only one factor/category/what not.
Simply note that all you have to do is answer non-X and that other humans can do that too.

Reality can't be reduced down to only physics or what ever. It is to complex for that and that includes reason, logic, rationality, knowledge, truth and what not too.
You can get away with being an atheist and I can get away with being religious. And neither of us are outside reality in practice, yet we understand parts of reality different. That is Protagoras and cognitive relativism and that is a result of biology. Biological diversity is also present among humans and we don't share the SAME reality. We are different parts, which share some similarities and are different in other aspects.

I am not trying to impress you. I am showing you that is not that simple as the OP implies.
So you are an atheist and that is a result of biology in part. And I am religious and that is a result of biology in part. Morality is an emergent property which supervenes on biology, but it can't be reduced down to only objective parts or what ever you what to call it. Both atheism and religion are real for the reality we share and what you do with that, is something you do. Hence:
"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras.
What reality is to you, is a measure in you and for certain aspects it is different in me. Whether you accept or deny that, is your measure and not mine.

 

[Spartan]

"Atheists outperform theists at nearly all reasoning skills"

 

[Gandalf]

Not surprising quite frankly as religion in contemporary society is far removed from culture and reason to begin with. Most religions do not even promote reasonable thinking in a free and livid form. The dogmatism and textual adherence creates a shuffling atmosphere where the believer seeks to ancient incoherent ramblings and rituals.
One cannot understand the moon if they are still stuck as a superstitious pagan believing in a moon god. It is a very crippling mindset

 

[ecco]

Neither you or I know who is on the other end of the Internet. Your point that I am not be who I say I am, also applies to you.

Obviously, my comment went right over your head.

So here it is: The humans species is the collection of similar, yet different genes and the effect of different nurture. That ends in Protagoras or if you like cognitive relativism.

It is simple.
The Truth is X as in one and only one factor/category/what not.
Simply note that all you have to do is answer non-X and that other humans can do that too.

Unintelligible gibberish.

Reality can't be reduced down to only physics or what ever. It is to complex for that and that includes reason, logic, rationality, knowledge, truth and what not too.

The thing that allows us to reason and acquire knowledge is actually physics and chemistry.

That is Protagoras and cognitive relativism and that is a result of biology. Biological diversity is also present among humans and we don't share the SAME reality. We are different parts, which share some similarities and are different in other aspects.

You seem to believe that science and philosophy are interchangeable in any way you see fit. I don't. Science describes the way the world (the universe) actually are. Philosophers, pretending there is a greater meaning to it all, ponder and write tomes.

I am not trying to impress you.

Not much danger of that.

So you are an atheist and that is a result of biology in part. And I am religious and that is a result of biology in part. Morality is an emergent property which supervenes on biology, but it can't be reduced down to only objective parts or what ever you what to call it.

I would never consider morality to be objective.

"Man is the measure of all things: of the things that are, that they are, of the things that are not, that they are not." - Protagoras.

See, that's the kind of philosophying that philosophers do. Long winded pronouncements meant to enthral those who are impressed by such.

What reality is to you, is a measure in you and for certain aspects it is different in me. Whether you accept or deny that, is your measure and not mine.

If what you are saying is that you view things differently than I do, OK. If you are saying reality is different because we view reality differently, then I would strongly disagree.