How is not accepting the claims of believers unfounded?
That's just nonsense. What does their belief have to do with anything?
Notice this is the default in logic, that ideas claims, and propositions are deemed untrue UNTIL they can be shown to be true, or at least likely true.
Again, this is nonsense. A proposition is logically deemed undecided until one can determine if it is valid or not. To determine that a proposition is invalid until it is proven to be valid to the person that has already determined it to be
invalid is that old "kangaroo court" thing that so many atheists really, REALLY love to engage in.
This is how trials work as well, that an accused is considered by default innocent until evidence demonstrates guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Philosophy is not a court of law, and does not follow the same logical rules or restrictions. If it were, you would have to default to the proposition being valid (innocent) until you could prove it otherwise (guilty). And you clearly have no intention of doing that.
We are all "believers" in the sense that we make judgments about ideas.
We don't have to believe a judgment to make judgment.
HOW a person makes judgments is what we are discussing.
No, what you are discussing is how you think they should be making judgments. I'm trying to point out that this is not our job. Nor our responsibility. We are not here to correct anyone else's judgment process (unless they are asking us to). We are here to share our own, so other people can draw what they want or need from that, and we can do likewise from them.
It's what I do. Notice you push back on my explanations and try to poke holes in what I say that don't really address the evidence, rather the process. On another thread you stated that science doesn't make life better, but then said that it is a choice to use science to make life better. You seem to be your own victim with your bias against science, but also the recognition that science does make life better. You have work to do for your own clarity. You can't debate with such inner confusion.
I have a very discerning mind when it comes to conceptual details after many years of study and practice. I can see subtle but important differences often when others cannot. But instead of learning from this, all many want to do is defend themselves, blindly and stupidly, and so they ignore the subtle but important distinctions that I point out to them by insisting that they aren't there.
But that's not for me to fix. All I can do is offer what I have to offer and if they can't accept it because their ego is hurt that's their issue to deal with. Not mine. So I move on.
Speak for yourself. You like to confuse yourself to fit your agenda and beliefs, which includes bias against science and reason.
I am neither confused nor do I hold to any particular "belief". My first goal is to be honest and my second goal is to be logically precise. I do take the time to explain to people why I define words and ideas the way I do but they ignore this because their goal is to negate whatever I say instead of learning from it, or even just leaving it be if they have no interest in it.
What does this have to do with the fact that you insist we aren't equipped to debate, but are arguing your position (which is irony at work, are you even self-aware of it?).
Very few people are actually equipped to debate anything. Which is why "debates" here pretty much always fall into name-calling and endless tit-for-tat talking past each other with no possible resolution, ever. And to be honest, I really don't think debate is an especially effective means of sharing valuable diverse perspectives, anyway. It's too much of an antagonistic methodology.
You write posts about yourself that you phrase as if you are referring to some other category of people. More of your inner confusion?
We are all members of the same collective, and yet we are all unique individuals. I am not confused about this at all, even as I can speak at any time from either perspective. I'm sorry if this confuses others, but I can't un-confuse them. They have to do that for themselves.
More of the "others", and nothing about yourself?
They ARE me and I AM them ... generally speaking. Specifically, though, not so much. (I am a Taoist, remember, so this makes complete sense to me.)
A lot of people around here tend to fall into the "Nut-huh, YOU did!" argument. They think that if they can accuse the accuser of the accusation being aimed at them, that this somehow magically negates the accusation when in fact all they did was further sustain it. I long ago got tired of responding to this kind of childish nonsense and the people that do it are so intellectually immature that they would only fight any response I gave them, anyway. So why bother?
And you are again rejecting the meaning of "critial thinkers" who are those with skilled reasoning ability. Why are you avoiding the real meanings and going off on some invented definition?
I'm not the one having trouble understanding it. I have participated in professional criticism for many decades. Still do on occasion. I understand how it works and what it's for. And it's not what I see you and some others here thinking it is.
More of your inner conflict that you can't reconcile?
We humans are; "wonderfully and frightfully made" - so saith the the Book of Eclesiastes. I have no problem with the yin and the yang creating and upholding each other as they express the 'Way of All Being' (Tao). I am neither confused nor one-dimensional.
Could it be you see yourself as those you have contempt for, and this is confusing?
It's uplifting: "
I am he as you are he as you are me
And we are all together"
I suspect you need to examine why you have bias against science and reason so you can let go of your inner conflict.
I am not biased against science. Or atheists. I think science is a very powerful and potentially elevating endeavor. I am very worried, however, about this weird pseudo-worship of science as the singular fountain of all things good and true. And especially so when I can see that the people engaged in it cannot see themselves engaged in it. AND they are so intent on fighting against any hint of it.
It's spooky, and it won't end well.
