@KN -
Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:
the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
The advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position
The conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.
... Borrowed from wiki
I wasn't saying that I was intellectually honest, it's not my claim to make. It was an observation that rev.J was being dishonest intellectually because of his intentional misquoting along with all 3 of the above examples, regardless of on what his actual beliefs are. I expressed that while you and I differ on our beliefs I've found you to be intellectually honest I was appreciating that.
My problem wasn't with his belief; I know and respect a lot of physical materialists, but his methodology and reasoning.
@Ace- No need to apologize, we both found it funny, for different reasons though most likely. If that's all you have to say then that's fine. One of these days though I'm going to drag more than one or two lines from you in relation to religion!
@CS- I wasn't retreating behind anything. I was making the point that the irreducible self (the I think therefore I am concept) is in a large part a function of the mind, influenced by physical stimuli and intangible concept, but not dependant on the brain as a sole storage medium. If the brain isn't the storage medium then the medium would have to transcend death. While not necessarily, it is likely to be intangible. That give it 2 qualities; intangible (or transcendent) and immortal. It would also be independent of the mental functions of self but be a part of identity. Therefore to me, part of who I am is based on experiential data, mental constructs and an intangible, irreducible, independent entity I term as a soul. Because of my religious bias I am inclined to also believe in the Holy Spirit, which is similar in makeup and (for all intents and purposes be the same thing). I differentiate the soul and Holy Spirit based on what I deem as contrary to my nature and will to be both independent of myself identity and influencing to my mind from an outward source. I then follow the logical conclusion my bias leads me to that the outside influence is God.
Intellectual dishonesty is dishonesty in performing intellectual activities like thought or communication. Examples are:
the advocacy of a position which the advocate knows or believes to be false or misleading
The advocacy of a position which the advocate does not know to be true, and has not performed rigorous due diligence to ensure the truthfulness of the position
The conscious omission of aspects of the truth known or believed to be relevant in the particular context.
... Borrowed from wiki
I wasn't saying that I was intellectually honest, it's not my claim to make. It was an observation that rev.J was being dishonest intellectually because of his intentional misquoting along with all 3 of the above examples, regardless of on what his actual beliefs are. I expressed that while you and I differ on our beliefs I've found you to be intellectually honest I was appreciating that.
My problem wasn't with his belief; I know and respect a lot of physical materialists, but his methodology and reasoning.
@Ace- No need to apologize, we both found it funny, for different reasons though most likely. If that's all you have to say then that's fine. One of these days though I'm going to drag more than one or two lines from you in relation to religion!
@CS- I wasn't retreating behind anything. I was making the point that the irreducible self (the I think therefore I am concept) is in a large part a function of the mind, influenced by physical stimuli and intangible concept, but not dependant on the brain as a sole storage medium. If the brain isn't the storage medium then the medium would have to transcend death. While not necessarily, it is likely to be intangible. That give it 2 qualities; intangible (or transcendent) and immortal. It would also be independent of the mental functions of self but be a part of identity. Therefore to me, part of who I am is based on experiential data, mental constructs and an intangible, irreducible, independent entity I term as a soul. Because of my religious bias I am inclined to also believe in the Holy Spirit, which is similar in makeup and (for all intents and purposes be the same thing). I differentiate the soul and Holy Spirit based on what I deem as contrary to my nature and will to be both independent of myself identity and influencing to my mind from an outward source. I then follow the logical conclusion my bias leads me to that the outside influence is God.
"There ought to be a term that would designate those who actually follow the teachings of Jesus, since the word 'Christian' has been largely divorced from those teachings, and so polluted by fundamentalists that it has come to connote their polar opposite: intolerance, vindictive hatred, and bigotry." -- Philip Stater, Huffington Post
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
always working on cleaning my windows- me regarding Johari
