Does religion impair vital critical thinking skills?

[icehorse]

"Usually" =/= "always." It's always a mistake to generalize.

I'll stand by "usually". And I see you still use "religion" and "spirituality" interchangeably, and I find that offensive

 

[Cephus]

For some, the expenditure/storing/amassing of energy -- as well as the conditioning of such energy is a spiritual endeavor. Have you ever heard of yoga, or of the chakra system in shamanic work? Or of the meditative work in contemplative Christianity?

Yup, all of which is nonsense and not demonstrated objectively to be valid.

I didn't say spirituality was "superior." I merely said it was a tool for fostering meaning and understanding. There are also a million stories about religious people who deal with the real world in a responsible, normal, and non-delusional way. I think it's unfair of you to generalize the way you are, simply because you don't "like," understand, buy into, or "get" spirituality.

Actually, when it comes to religion, there aren't. Because gods cannot be demonstrated in any rational way, anyone who believes in gods, no matter how normally they might act, is not non-delusional.

 

[sojourner]

I'll stand by "usually". And I see you still use "religion" and "spirituality" interchangeably, and I find that offensive

I'm nearly convinced that the distinction between religion and spirituality is negligible at best, if not a completely false distinction.

 

[sojourner]

Yup, all of which is nonsense and not demonstrated objectively to be valid.

By whom? Who's in charge of "religious practice validation?" I can tell you that, at the very least, these practices can initiate a placebo effect, which is "valid." If people think it makes them feel better, and then they feel better, the practice is validated.

Actually, when it comes to religion, there aren't.

Of course there are, and you know it.

Because gods cannot be demonstrated in any rational way, anyone who believes in gods, no matter how normally they might act, is not non-delusional.

I'd bet my left nut that the psychiatric community would disagree with you (you know -- the people who are the experts in delusional thinking?). You're holding mythic meaning to a false and arbitrary standard. There is the rational and there is also the intuitive. Both are valid cognitive exercises. The mythic falls in the intuitive category.

 

[icehorse]

I'm nearly convinced that the distinction between religion and spirituality is negligible at best, if not a completely false distinction.

Interesting. For me it's almost the opposite. Now to be fair, when I think of religion I think of the most predominant approaches, but I'm sure their are lots of individual approaches that I'd consider to be close to spirituality.

One distinction leaps to mind - I consider myself to be spiritual and I have zero need to bring anything supernatural into it...

 

[sojourner]

I do understand Christianity as taught by Jesus which is why I find it sickening.

Hmmm... So, hospitality, equality, dignity, and unconditional love sicken you. Nice to know.

I know your Bible better than you

You know nothing about me. First, you're assuming that it's "my bible." In what way is it "my bible?" Second, I seriously doubt you "know the bible" better than I.

and I actually understand it.

Uh huh. You'll pardon me if I don't rush right out nd cut you a check for that swampland you're selling.

I am not interested in your opinions or the words of ministers, just the Bible.

That's in direct conflict with your previous post.

Preachers serve only 2 purposes, to lie or to destroy

1) What in the world do preachers have to do with the topic immediately at hand?
2) I've never seen in any judicatory any criteria that list "lie" and "destroy" as either objectives for, or qualifications of, ministry. Your statement is nothing but cheap provocation, with no basis in reality.

All that you are doing is applying a No True Scotsman fallacy to the Bible assuming that a person cannot understand something obvious.

False. I'm merely stating that, judging by your statements in your previous post, it's obvious that you don't understand what Jesus taught. I'm not commenting on the validity of you or anything else -- only commenting on your misunderstanding.

I have 2 claims to make and they are not rooted in superstitions nor dogma while you have thousands of pages of it.

I have thousands of pages of... what?? Dogma and superstition? How do you figure? Go ahead! Tell me how you know what I do and do not hold to be irrefutably true.

I hold opinions to facts not to what I want the world yet alone a book to be.

Which, undoubtedly, is why your opinions here vary wildly from the facts...

I do not want the Bible to be anything

I call bullspit. I think you desperately want the bible to be as you explain it, or your explanation wouldn't be so far from the facts. I don't think you understand the bible at all -- and I don't think you want to!

I want it removed from the hearts of innocent children who do not have to grow up listening to teaching that can only be described as anti-human, morally depraved and malicious.

See? You do have an agenda and an opinion, after all! Frankly, I fail to see how justice, equality, dignity, fairness, love, and forgiveness can be described as "anti-human, morally depraved and malicious."

To understand the Bible is to hate the Bible because only a human being would hate the words of something anti-human.

This doesn't make any sense. Unless, I suppose, one has been riding in Cheech & Chong's van...

Trying creating an interpretation around that and I know good and well you are speaking from your heart not from the Bible yet alone the monster named Jesus.

You know nothing about me.
It appears as though all you've given us is 1m, 29s of how your atheism has impaired your vital critical thinking skills, because this post of yours is certainly off the map of critical analysis.

 

[Storm]

I do understand Christianity as taught by Jesus which is why I find it sickening. I know your Bible better than you and I actually understand it. I am not interested in your opinions or the words of ministers, just the Bible. Preachers serve only 2 purposes, to lie or to destroy; so why would I concerned myself with demented dogma and teachings when I can read the Bible for what it is. There need not be any interpretation required in a book allegedly written by a supreme being.
Considering the Bible for what it is I would have to say it was written by the most ignorant and powerless of beings.

All that you are doing is applying a No True Scotsman fallacy to the Bible assuming that a person cannot understand something obvious. I have 2 claims to make and they are not rooted in superstitions nor dogma while you have thousands of pages of it. Your own coherency on a matter cannot assuredly be the Bible's unless you are telling me you agree with every single opinion in the Bible which JUST SO HAPPENS to match your own.

I hold opinions to facts not to what I want the world yet alone a book to be. I do not want the Bible to be anything, I wanted it to be the way it is now I want it removed from the hearts of innocent children who do not have to grow up listening to teaching that can only be described as anti-human, morally depraved and malicious.

To understand the Bible is to hate the Bible because only a human being would hate the words of something anti-human. Trying creating an interpretation around that and I know good and well you are speaking from your heart not from the Bible yet alone the monster named Jesus.

Timed at 1m and 29s (I time my rants )

Don't bet on that, sweetheart.

I'm no Christian, but I am fairly well educated, and I got no dog in this fight. Sojourner is not a random pop fundamentalist who knows nothing but what some pastor spoon feeds him.

Best to figure out who you're talking to before making such claims.

But then, you obviously have trouble reading clearly, what with all the blinding hatred.

 

[Storm]

I'll stand by "usually". And I see you still use "religion" and "spirituality" interchangeably, and I find that offensive

Too bad. It's not your place to govern anyone else's expression of spirituality.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Don't bet on that, sweetheart.

I'm no Christian, but I am fairly well educated, and I got no dog in this fight. Sojourner is not a random pop fundamentalist who knows nothing but what some pastor spoon feeds him.

Best to figure out who you're talking to before making such claims.

But then, you obviously have trouble reading clearly, what with all the blinding hatred.

Storm I have argued with Sojourner countless times and I find his arguments lacking I once thought he actually was a fundie until he kept contradicting himself when it was convenient. He is like William Lane Craig except has arguments twice as bad for everything.
His constant packaging of Biblical concepts in New Age fluff just ruined my lack of concern for his arguments a long time ago.
You don't have to warn me about the credibility of people or else I would not say that things I say about them.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Thoughts?

It's true that many studies have shown that those belonging to a religion tend to have lower g values than atheists/agnostics (although many studies have also shown various mental and even physical values to religious belief). It's also true that humans seem predisposed to religious belief and that disbelief/unbelief involves different cognitive styles or is explained in terms of greater cognitive load. However, studies which look at ideology and/or dogmatic beliefs (including among non-believers) tend to reinforce consistent findings in research since cognitive science began: people don't think critically, logic runs counter to our natural "reasoning" skills, and both critical analysis and logic have to be taught. Thus in places where religion is widespread, the differences in cognitive styles/abilities are greater, and in all places dogmatic beliefs of various types flourish (from religious beliefs to political beliefs to environmental beliefs to general group membership/identity). In fact, there is some evidence that atheists/anti-theists are closer to believers than agnostics or those who don't identify themselves as anything other than non-believers. I've attached one study on this that is fairly straightforward and rather interesting, mostly for illuminating how complex this line of question is.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Don't bet on that, sweetheart.

I'm no Christian, but I am fairly well educated, and I got no dog in this fight. Sojourner is not a random pop fundamentalist who knows nothing but what some pastor spoon feeds him.

Best to figure out who you're talking to before making such claims.

But then, you obviously have trouble reading clearly, what with all the blinding hatred.

Oh, I did not read the rest of your post and did not realize you were trying to attack me. Hatred is not blinding it it does not exist. I am not a hateful person but you hate me for merely making a comment against a religion you respect.

So instead of making Ad Hominems say something meaningful instead of trying to insult me. I am seriously curious if the only reason why people like insulting me is because I won't engage in debates with people

 

[sojourner]

Storm I have argued with Sojourner countless times and I find his arguments lacking I once thought he actually was a fundie until he kept contradicting himself when it was convenient. He is like William Lane Craig except has arguments twice as bad for everything.
His constant packaging of Biblical concepts in New Age fluff just ruined my lack of concern for his arguments a long time ago.
You don't have to warn me about the credibility of people or else I would not say that things I say about them.

Translation: "I can't refute his arguments adequately, so, to save face, I'll simply dismiss them with a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy."

If you thought I was a fundie, it's not because I haven't stated my position clearly. It's because you're letting your own issues with religion get in the way of clear reading. I suppose we feel an amazing lack of respect for each other. You claim that I'm full of New Age hooey, and I've already dismissed you for your lack of understanding of both Christianity and the bible -- as well as called you out for projecting your issues of bias onto me. I've been here for almost nine years, posted over 24,000 times, and you're the very first person to ever mistake me for a fundie. What does that tell you? You disagree with Storm's assessment, who's posted over 44,000 times (and with whom I've sparred on numerous occasions). What does that tell you?

Probably that Jesus' teachings of justice, fairness, equality, dignity, hospitality, love, and forgiveness are as "anti-human, morally depraved and malicious" as you have claimed.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Translation: "I can't refute his arguments adequately, so, to save face, I'll simply dismiss them with a 'no true Scotsman' fallacy."

If you thought I was a fundie, it's not because I haven't stated my position clearly. It's because you're letting your own issues with religion get in the way of clear reading. I suppose we feel an amazing lack of respect for each other. You claim that I'm full of New Age hooey, and I've already dismissed you for your lack of understanding of both Christianity and the bible -- as well as called you out for projecting your issues of bias onto me. I've been here for almost nine years, posted over 24,000 times, and you're the very first person to ever mistake me for a fundie. What does that tell you? You disagree with Storm's assessment, who's posted over 44,000 times (and with whom I've sparred on numerous occasions). What does that tell you?

Probably that Jesus' teachings of justice, fairness, equality, dignity, hospitality, love, and forgiveness are as "anti-human, morally depraved and malicious" as you have claimed.

Argument ad hominem.
You poisoned the well (considering your attacks you radiated it)
Argument from Authenticity.
Failed Character Assassination.
Tons of red herrings (on my morality)

And finally the fact that you are lying repeatedly about my assertions which I have no even remotely elaborated upon. Your end sentence is proof of this. Considering that I go up and about claiming Jesus was anything but loving and forgiving and you say I despise Jesus for this you have to pretty much be lying from the get go.

Seriously, even when I argued you in the past you never did this and I always maintained a firm policy of avoiding you because it. Character Development goes a long way and because you are a Christian and holds to certain believes I cannot change you, nor will I bother. Your beliefs are highly evil and your attitude is applorable but you don't have to be that way. Everyone can change and become a better person. Exercising the ability to understanding towards others is what makes people get along. Such things are not found in the Bible nor in the teachings of Jesus since they contradict and become tribalistic but tribalism is not good for anyone.

I wish you well.

 

[sojourner]

Oh, I did not read the rest of your post and did not realize you were trying to attack me. Hatred is not blinding it it does not exist. I am not a hateful person but you hate me for merely making a comment against a religion you respect.

So instead of making Ad Hominems say something meaningful instead of trying to insult me. I am seriously curious if the only reason why people like insulting me is because I won't engage in debates with people

First, this is a debate forum, so it's rather expected that participants are here to ... debate (Gee! What a concept!) One has to wonder why someone would come to participate in a debate forum and then refuse to actually debate, then, wonder why everyone disparages her for not debating?

Second, You make hateful statements such as referring to Jesus as a "monster," and saying that "preachers only serve two purposes, to lie and to destroy." But you're not a hateful person.

Heck, I'd settle for you merely proving how you "know" that it's "my" bible, how you think you understand the bible better than I, and how you "know" I'm "speaking from [my] heart." But I'm not gonna hold my breath, because you've just said you won't debate with people. Meaning you'd rather simply vomit your vitriol and then disappear. We'd all be better off if you'd simply start a blog that we could all simply ignore, rather than wasting our bandwidth with your non-debates.

 

[Woodrow LI]

Interesting. For me it's almost the opposite. Now to be fair, when I think of religion I think of the most predominant approaches, but I'm sure their are lots of individual approaches that I'd consider to be close to spirituality.

One distinction leaps to mind - I consider myself to be spiritual and I have zero need to bring anything supernatural into it...

A very good outlook and attitude.
For myself I find Religiosity and Spirituality to be mutually supportive

 

[sojourner]

Argument ad hominem.

Nope. I never attacked your person. I only attacked your statements. Fail.

You poisoned the well (considering your attacks you radiated it)

Nope. Poisoning the well implies some action antecedent to your posts. But all of my posts have been consequent to yours. Fail.

Failed Character Assassination.

Character assassination?? Really?! Srrsly?! That's a real grasping for straws. I've never mentioned anything about your character. Epic fail.

Tons of red herrings (on my morality)

I don't think I've ever brought your "morality" into it. Therefore, your herring is a ... red herring. As well as all of your other baseless accusations.

And finally the fact that you are lying repeatedly about my assertions which I have no even remotely elaborated upon.

I've only commented on what you've written. You implied that you know "my" bible better than me. I said that it's unlikely from reading your assessment of the bible that that's true. And I wondered why you seem to think that it's "my" bible.

Considering that I go up and about claiming Jesus was anything but loving and forgiving and you say I despise Jesus for this you have to pretty much be lying from the get go.

I didn't say that you "despise Jesus." So... you're lying about my having lied. Which is another red herring.

Character Development goes a long way and because you are a Christian and holds to certain believes I cannot change you, nor will I bother.

Who says I'm a Christian? What "believes" do I "hold?" Nothing but assumption here on your part.

Your beliefs are highly evil

I'm standing up for justice, fairness, hospitality, dignity, love, and forgiveness, and those standards are "highly evil???" Aaaaaaalllll--righty, then!

and your attitude is applorable

"Applorable?" WTF?! My "attitude" is that your posts are ill-informed and provocative. I have no idea what your non-term "applorable" is supposed to mean. Discover the dictionary, for Pete's sake!

Exercising the ability to understanding towards others is what makes people get along.

Something you're obviously eschewing here, since you've already let your (unfounded) bias fall out for all to see, without regard for the feelings of those who hold dear the objects of your bias.

Such things are not found in the Bible nor in the teachings of Jesus since they contradict and become tribalistic but tribalism is not good for anyone.

So, Jesus didn't "understand" the Samaritan woman at the well, or the impure woman who touched him, or the prostitute they were about to stone, or the woman who was anointing his feet, or Zaccaeus, or Nicodemus, or the young lawyer, or Bartemaeus, or the ten lepers, or the paralytic, or the Gerasene Demoniac, or the tax collector, or the man blind from birth, or Jairus, etc., etc., etc.? FYI: there's a difference between "tribalism" and community. Jesus fostered the latter, and railed against the former.

It's not your "morality" or your "character" I "despise." It's your baseless vitriol arising from either misunderstanding or lack of information.

 

[Storm]

Storm I have argued with Sojourner countless times and I find his arguments lacking I once thought he actually was a fundie until he kept contradicting himself when it was convenient. He is like William Lane Craig except has arguments twice as bad for everything.
His constant packaging of Biblical concepts in New Age fluff just ruined my lack of concern for his arguments a long time ago.
You don't have to warn me about the credibility of people or else I would not say that things I say about them.

Well, blinders will do that to you.

I've known him for years, and had countless productive discussions. People who tend to dismiss actual, educated theology as "New Age fluff" and get hysterical when he doesn't conform to their expectations of what Christians should be - stupid, anti-science bigots, for the most part - tend to not do so well.

 

[Storm]

Oh, I did not read the rest of your post and did not realize you were trying to attack me. Hatred is not blinding it it does not exist. I am not a hateful person but you hate me for merely making a comment against a religion you respect.

So instead of making Ad Hominems say something meaningful instead of trying to insult me. I am seriously curious if the only reason why people like insulting me is because I won't engage in debates with people

1) Reading the whole post is generally advisable.

2) You're the one who said that to read the Bible is to hate it. Your posts drip hatred, and you chose the word. It is not an insult to take you at your word.

3) I don't hate you. Why would I? I think you're pretty funny, albeit in a rather sad way, but you are no threat to me, and I am not so insecure in my beliefs that I need to take the existence of people who believe differently as some sort of personal affront.

3) You really oughtn't assume you know you I feel about any given religion. My opinions on such topics tend to be a bit more complex than bumper stickers like "to read the Bible is to hate it."

 

[sojourner]

1) Reading the whole post is generally advisable.

2) You're the one who said that to read the Bible is to hate it. Your posts drip hatred, and you chose the word. It is not an insult to take you at your word.

3) I don't hate you. Why would I? I think you're pretty funny, albeit in a rather sad way, but you are no threat to me, and I am not so insecure in my beliefs that I need to take the existence of people who believe differently as some sort of personal affront.

3) You really oughtn't assume you know you I feel about any given religion. My opinions on such topics tend to be a bit more complex than bumper stickers like "to read the Bible is to hate it."

I liked your "bumper sticker" simile in reference to her argument. That argument was rather ... pedestrian, wasn't it?

 

[Storm]

I liked your "bumper sticker" simile in reference to her argument. That argument was rather ... pedestrian, wasn't it?

You always were so much more charitable than I. It's that whole Christianity thing, isn't it? LOL

Good to see ya, dude.