Thinking outside the bot.

[RJT]

Let’s get back to Kbfc’s post regarding the military and David’s general view of the religious.

Isn’t there something to be said relative to science of those who have, I’ll use the word, imagination? (To those atheists who want to, you can take this word literally to amuse yourself. To the other atheists and to the believer, I think they understand how I mean it.)

I assume that without intuition, imagination, “thinking outside the box” we would be further than we are science wise. Do we agree?

So, in this context perhaps those of belief actually have an edge over the atheists.

To use the analogy of poker. If one plays like a bot, rather than has a bit of imagination isn’t he actually at the disadvantage?

I also think of the image of the absent-minded professor. The guy who has his head up his a.. (How common is this? I am not being rhetorical, I don’t know if it is an often seen trait or not.) Those who can’t see the forest for the trees. Are they being too limited in their thinking?

Does this scenario have any applicability to the general discussion?

Your making a huge error in assuming religious=imaginative='thinking outside the box'.

The best example is that for atheism to evolve away from our religious ancestors, various philosophers had to think outside the current box, and realise that God was probably a human creation.

There is a big difference between a creative imagination and being gullible or illogical, and I would hypothesise that more atheists would fit your description than religious people.

[ QUOTE ]
To use the analogy of poker. If one plays like a bot, rather than has a bit of imagination isn’t he actually at the disadvantage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Great a post, I can answer, that is poker related. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

The analogy to me would be the poker player that plays thinking that the deck can be affected by his behavoiur or is stacked in his favour (the believer), versus the player that accept variance and knows it can hit any time for as long as it will (even unreasonably so lol).

To me the later is a better poker player and has an edge, altough he may be a looser.

[kbfc]

You just described pretty much exactly the sort of intelligence David and I hold in highest regard. There's a difference between creative problem solving and whimsical speculation.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
You just described pretty much exactly the sort of intelligence David and I hold in highest regard. There's a difference between creative problem solving and whimsical speculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Now take out the word whimsical (and add a few things, although I'll settle for the removal of the word)and your reply says something.

It is that difference that I am talking about. The span between creative problem solving and speculation (to use your word) that I am talking about.

[kbfc]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You just described pretty much exactly the sort of intelligence David and I hold in highest regard. There's a difference between creative problem solving and whimsical speculation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree. Now take out the word whimsical (and add a few things, although I'll settle for the removal of the word)and your reply says something.

It is that difference that I am talking about. The span between creative problem solving and speculation (to use your word) that I am talking about.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't really want to remove the word 'whimsical.' Regardless, though, what are you trying to say? As I see it there is a very simple distinction here:

creative problem solving = good.
metaphysical thrashing (my replacement phrase) = bad.