Why would an otherwise intelligent person abandon critical thinking when it comes to religion? We all know them. Apparently smart folks who, when questioned about their religious beliefs, resort to pure circularity of argument and irrational statements. The simple request to "prove it" results in a whole spectrum of words that mean nothing. "I don't have to prove it - I know it's true!" is the most common response. "But how do you know?" we ask. Spin off into eternal debate... So, how many theists out there think they are employing critical thinking skills in their religious convictions? And if you willingly abandon critical thinking to maintain your religious beliefs, how do you justify this?
It's the only one that gets actual, tangible results. Lysenko was not criticised by his fellow Soviet scientists (or rather, those who did criticise it were sent to the gulag) for his idiotic Lamarckian theories, and the result was agricultural disaster and famine. The Western hegemony was not open to dissent after 9/11, and the result is the current Iraqi disaster. Critical thinking means examining your most cherished beliefs, scientific or otherwise, and subjecting them to the glare of real objectivity.
What is wrong with you? Where the f is the humility? Where? You know, it's not some religious persons fault that atheists want to pretend that they just "don't get it". Here, let me explain this again real slow for the retarded kids... You don't get proof of God from a theist, you get it from God. It's not my fault that you won't go to God for it. Stop asking me to provide you with something I can't provide you with, and then blaming me for it. And for God's sake, having a relationship with God has NOTHING to do with critical thinking. Otherwise, it wouldn't be fair to people like you. Get it? :bugeye:
With respect, Lori, he wasn't asking for proof of God in this thread, and your response was precisely what he was trying to avoid, ie the beginning of an endless line of "How do you know?" "I just know" responses. And you yourself know that not every theist on these boards has experienced God the way that you have.
silas: well said. and lori: you make no sense. what has humility got to do with critical thinking?. there is no pretense about atheism. as god does'nt exist, how can you get proof from something non-existent, of it's existence. a very big DUH!.( so you ask those who, sadly think it exists to show that it exists.) we cant go to that, which is'nt there now can we. when you realise that as you say, what you cant provide, is be because it's non-existent. you'll understand why we require proof of it's existence. and of course, a belief in a god has nothing to do with critical thinking, thats the whole point.
Here, let me explain this again real slow for the retarded kids... How does your bipolar disorder, which has inflicted you with hallucinations and voices in your head, allow you to distinguish who is retarded?
Thanks Silas. And ellions question is a good one - is critical thinking the only acceptable form of cognition? And Silas's answer was a very good one. Were talking about how one assesses the reality of a thing here my theist friends. Not whether it's real or not. Lori, Thanks for your input. Now, the thread was about how you justify tossing critical thinking regarding something you claim to be real. I.e. god. I don't care about relationship dynamics as they are subjective (I like my dog). We already know you like god. So, if your answer to the existence/nonexistence of my dog was somehow a matter of life-and-death for you, or maybe the correct answer would get you a million bucks, you would demand proof that my dog was real. I could send you hair samples, pictures, and even bring him over for a good belly scratch. He might even pee on your rug. You would use critical thinking to verify the fact that he was really my dog. You might ask for papers, a sales receipt, vet records, etc. I would think that genuinely interested people would want to do at least as much critical thinking on the important subject of the god they devote their lives to. No? So, as a theist, maybe you can help with this question? Why do you accept the existence of god with far less critical analysis than you would the existence of my dog?
Hostile: You make no sense. YOU cant prove God doesnt exist. Give me proof, practice what you preach!! ************* M*W: You are the one who believes God exists, therefore, you are the one who needs to prove your belief. Not the other way around.
Don't know about your question (the answer), but after taking critical thinking as a subject at my uni last year I wrote a comprehensive gude to critical thinking and posted it at my forum. And the post quality has quite increased. Oh and I've banned all talks of religion in my forum too. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You'd be surprised how much better (and sane) the conversations have become (with the loss of religion loving posters).
quite simply the onus is on you, your the one with a belief, without evidence. Proving Existence or Non-Existence. The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing. To put that another way: - When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain. From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing: The thing exists. It is unknown if the thing exists or not. It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria. If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence. Proof that an event has occurred is somewhat different. It can not be proved conclusively that any particular event has or has not occurred but the probability of an event occurring can be estimated depending on:- The strength of the evidence. The volume of evidence. The quality of evidence. The probability of the evidence being caused by a different event. Independent witness corroboration. For example: - Event 1 - President Kennedy was assassinated. Volume of evidence - Many witnesses, Televised, A Body, Bullet wounds. Quality of evidence - Precise forensic evidence of cause of death, ballistics evidence linked to murder weapon. Assassin's confession. Alternative event probability - Accidental firearm discharge unlikely because of multiple hits on target, suicide unlikely because no powder burns, no weapon found near victim. Mistaken identity or wrong target unlikely ….. Independent witness corroboration - Excellent, Directly seen by hundreds, Indirectly seen by millions. Event 2: - A talking snake convinced a genetically engineered female to eat Fruit that caused her to gain knowledge of good and evil. Volume of evidence - Contained only in one book (Genesis) of uncertain origin. Quality of evidence - Very poor, Snakes have no physical means of talking, The interpretation of Genesis is disputed among Christians, The eating of Fruits does not cause knowledge to be gained. Serious technical difficulties in remainder of this book. Contradicts accounts from other religions. Alternative event probability - Very High, More likely to have been an illustrative or metaphorical event rather than a literal event. Independent witness corroboration, No witnesses. There is a very high probability that Event 1 occurred, literally, as stated. There is a very low probability that Event 2 occurred, literally, as stated. It is not possible to prove or disprove the occurrence of an event you can only argue for the probability of it's occurrence. The Christians say their God exists. The onus of proof lies with the Christians. Atheists do not have to disprove because they have not made the claim. Christians say Genesis occured. The evidence indicates otherwise and relies on the existance of a God which has not been proven.
I believe in a pink fluffy bunny rabbit living in the zeta dimension. Now prove to me that he doesn't exist, and that zeta dimension doesn't exist. If you can't prove that, he exists.
Lori, So, using critical thinking, tell me about the attributes of spirits and how one knows they exist beyond dementia? Just a note, you are exhibiting the same behavior that every theist I've ever spoken to exhibits when questioned about the reality of god and the validity of their thinking. Fear induced irrationalism. Why are you afraid? We're just talking about thought processes here.
If I am wrong, I will accept. If you are wrong, you will have to accept. The thing is, I feel I am in a win-win situation. My belief comes from my heart, your belief comes from your head. If I ask you what started the human race, you will give me what you believe to be true. We both know that the human race exist. But, how did it all come about? Im sure you answer will be without flaw.
So, we now agree that there indeed exists a pink fluffy bunny rabbit living in the zeta dimension, yes? I believe it with all my heart.
I cannot tell you without a shadow of a doubt that the pink fluffy bunny does not exist. There could be an entire planet full of them. I do not know. There are two debates that can never be won. Religion and politics. For there to be a winner there must be an end. There is no end to either debate.
