Academics causes the current political crisis, by promoting materialism

[Syamsu]

The single uncerlying cause of the current political crisis, is the materalism that is promoted in academics.

Materialism is the idea that everything in reality is material of some sort (including energy etc.).

The problem with materialism is that it only validates the concept of fact. Materialism does not validate the concept of a personal opinion, like opinions about what is good, loving and beautiful.

So then, because students are instructed in materialist issues in academics, for years on end, the students lose the understanding of how to make a personal opinion. So then the students end up making bad personal opinions, which results in bad politics.

In my prediction there will be no end to this political crisis, untill people come to understand more about personal opinions. It is the only way that people can come to their senses.

The current pollitical crisis can last for decades more. The solution is for students to pay more attention to understanding about personal opinions.

The logic that is used with personal opinions, is that an opinion is chosen, and that the opinion expresses what it is that makes a choice.

For exampe, the opinion that a painting is beautiful. The opinion is formed by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, thus chosen, and the opinion expresses a love for the way the painting looks. Out of this love the word "beautiful" was chosen.

In any personal opinion that same logic can be found that an opinion is chosen, and that it expresses what it is that makes a choice. And if the logic cannot be found, then it is an invalid opinion. For example if someone is forced to say a painting is beautiful, then it is an invalid opinion, because the opinion is not chosen.

The concept of personal opinion is a creationist concept. Creationism validates both concepts of opinion and fact, in one coherent conceptual scheme. Creationism is currently banned in academics. I wrote on a wiki how the basic logic in creationism works.

http://www.creationwiki.org/Creationist_Philosophy

 

[Slartibartfast]

Opinions < Facts

 

[ttwtt78640]

Hmm… did you just create a spam thread?

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Now I have a headache

 

[Slartibartfast]

Now I have a headache

Basically the OP tried to raise opinion to the level of fact and then used that to try and justify creationism in science class.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Basically the OP tried to raise opinion to the level of fact and then used that to try and justify creationism in science class.

I still have a headache.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I still have a headache.

I don't think I could simplify the argument any further. But suffice to say its a pretty flawed one. If the OP were truly worried about critical thinking skills, then they would promote critical thinking skills and not true to devalue facts.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Basically the OP tried to raise opinion to the level of fact and then used that to try and justify creationism in science class.

Yep, stuff exists therefore (my?) God (must have?) created (all of?) that stuff is an unproven theory. I suppose the premise is that all theories (big bang, evolution or bIblical ‘truth’) are opinions, regardless of supporting (or contradictory) evidence.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Yep, stuff exists therefore (my?) God (must have?) created (all of?) that stuff is an unproven theory. I suppose the premise is that all theories (big bang, evolution or bIblical ‘truth’) are opinions, regardless of supporting (or contradictory) evidence.

Pretty much. Personally I believe that God did create the universe, my soul, earth, etc, but I realize that's not science, that's just my belief and I could not back it up beyond my personal experiences. Some may believe me and some may not.

 

[Syamsu]

I don't think I could simplify the argument any further. But suffice to say its a pretty flawed one. If the OP were truly worried about critical thinking skills, then they would promote critical thinking skills and not true to devalue facts.

I'm not stupid, ok. There is no straight out fundamental flaw in my argumentation.

Creationism is required for promoting critical thinking skills.

People require the straightforward acknowledgement of both the spiritual and material domain, to make good, purely emotional opinions, and obtain hard accurate facts besides. And be capable of distinguishing between the two.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I'm not stupid, ok. There is no straight out fundamental flaw in my argumentation.

Creationism is required for promoting critical thinking skills.

People require the straightforward acknowledgement of both the spiritual and material domain, to make good, purely emotional opinions, and obtain hard accurate facts besides. And be capable of distinguishing between the two.

Please let me know which of these classes is about creationism

Top Critical Thinking Courses Online - Updated [May 2023]

Learn the best critical thinking techniques and practices from top-rated Udemy instructors. Whether you’re interested in identifying fallacies, overcoming cognitive bias, or learning about the fundamentals of logic, Udemy has a course to help you think critically.

www.udemy.com

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'm not stupid, ok. There is no straight out fundamental flaw in my argumentation.

Creationism is required for promoting critical thinking skills.

People require the straightforward acknowledgement of both the spiritual and material domain, to make good, purely emotional opinions, and obtain hard accurate facts besides. And be capable of distinguishing between the two.

That (bolded above) is an opinion - not a fact. One does not have to accept any particular religious belief (dogma?) as fact in order to think critically.

 

[Syamsu]

Please let me know which of these classes is about creationism

Top Critical Thinking Courses Online - Updated [May 2023]

Learn the best critical thinking techniques and practices from top-rated Udemy instructors. Whether you’re interested in identifying fallacies, overcoming cognitive bias, or learning about the fundamentals of logic, Udemy has a course to help you think critically.

www.udemy.com

That is just an argument from authority. The evidence shows that academics as it is, is the problem, they have generally banned creationism.

Supposing the understanding of the concept of fact, and the concept of opinion is measured in some way. So then if someone who is surveyed classifies beauty as a matter of fact, then they would score points towards not understanding personal opinions. So we would get a measure of these things.

The findings would probably be, a pretty good understanding of what a fact is.
A pretty bad understanding of the difference between fact and opinion.
A horrible / absent understanding of what a personal opinion is.

 

[Syamsu]

That (bolded above) is an opinion - not a fact. One does not have to accept any particular religious belief (dogma?) as fact in order to think critically.

Creationism defines what a personal opinion is, and what a fact is. The two categories of creator and creation, defines them.

 

[bomberfox]

I'm not stupid, ok. There is no straight out fundamental flaw in my argumentation.

Creationism is required for promoting critical thinking skills.

People require the straightforward acknowledgement of both the spiritual and material domain, to make good, purely emotional opinions, and obtain hard accurate facts besides. And be capable of distinguishing between the two.

. No it isnt, anymore than teaching alchemy is required for critical thinking.

 

[bomberfox]

That is just an argument from authority. The evidence shows that academics as it is, is the problem, they have generally banned creationism.

Supposing the understanding of the concept of fact, and the concept of opinion is measured in some way. So then if someone who is surveyed classifies beauty as a matter of fact, then they would score points towards not understanding personal opinions. So we would get a measure of these things.

The findings would probably be, a pretty good understanding of what a fact is.
A pretty bad understanding of the difference between fact and opinion.
A horrible / absent understanding of what a personal opinion is.

Creationists never had a problem with banning evolutionary theory so that goes out the window.

 

[bomberfox]

This entire debacle can be easily solved with the is/aught distinction.

 

[Syamsu]

This entire debacle can be easily solved with the is/aught distinction.

Not really, because you can make a statement like "Trump is a loving person".

Oughts follow from love. For example, I like to get to the top of the mountain, therefore I ought to do what get's me to the top, and ought not to do what keeps me from getting there.

So then if Trump is a loving person, then you should vote for him.

It has to be understood that whether someone is loving person or not, is a matter of chosen opinion. It has to be understood there are 2 parts to reality, a spiritual subjective part, and a material objective part.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Not really, because you can make a statement like "Trump is a loving person".

Oughts follow from love. For example, I like to get to the top of the mountain, therefore I ought to do what get's me to the top, and ought not to do what keeps me from getting there.

So then if Trump is a loving person, then you should vote for him.

It has to be understood that whether someone is loving person or not, is a matter of chosen opinion. It has to be understood there are 2 parts to reality, a spiritual subjective part, and a material objective part.

OK - based on your critical thinking, why does (did?) God create diseases and continually cause natural disasters (aka acts of God)?

 

[Syamsu]

OK - based on your critical thinking, why does (did?) God create diseases and continually cause natural disasters (aka acts of God)?

You don't understand creationism. To not believe in God is perfectly consistent with creationism, because the entire creator category is subjective.

So then supposedly you could scientifically measure the exact decision by which the universe was created.

Then creationism says it is a matter of chosen opinion what the identity is of who made that decision turn out the way it did.

You just feel it, and then express your feelings on it, by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, thereby choosing an opinion on it.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You don't understand creationism. To not believe in God is perfectly consistent with creationism, because the entire creator category is subjective.

So then supposedly you could scientifically measure the exact decision by which the universe was created.

Then creationism says it is a matter of chosen opinion what the identity is of who made that decision turn out the way it did.

You just feel it, and then express your feelings on it, by spontaneous expression of emotion with free will, thereby choosing an opinion on it.

That did not answer my question at all.

 

[Syamsu]

That did not answer my question at all.

Your question was besides the point. The point is people not understanding what a personal opinion is, and consequently making bad personal opinions, resulting in bad politics.

 

[Quag]

The OP is a massive fail of biblical proportions

 

[Quag]

I'm not stupid, ok. There is no straight out fundamental flaw in my argumentation.

Creationism is required for promoting critical thinking skills.

People require the straightforward acknowledgement of both the spiritual and material domain, to make good, purely emotional opinions, and obtain hard accurate facts besides. And be capable of distinguishing between the two.

Bolded is false, creationism the the antithesis of critical thinking

 

[ttwtt78640]

Bolded is false, creationism the the antithesis of critical thinking

Blasphemy!