Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Of course you doubt... because only atheists can think critically, obviously!
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Double-blind Prayer Efficacy Test -- Really?
- Thread starter Kenny
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I never made that claim or even implied it. Now fundamentalists do not think critically. It is part and parcel of being a fundamentalist. It is simply not allowed.
That's not bad, but it's incomplete. Think about doing that with a car engine. There's a right and wrong way to assemble engine elements, and a right and a wrong way to assemble a sound argument.
Your definition, which can be rewritten "critical thinking is nothing but analysis and synthesis" is part of this one: "Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action." What it seems to leave out is the confirmation steps, the equivalent of starting the engine to see if it works. One needs to do everything possible to confirm the soundness of a conclusion.
As you can see, the etymology of analysis and synthesis are essentially loosen-up and place-together:
Origin
Origin
As stated, this is done for the purpose of generating or identifying sound conclusions, which inevitably result from this process if done fallacy-free. As @Subduction Zone notes, evaluating evidence is a skill that requires not only noting what is evident, but also what is not evident that might have been. And as others have noted, there is also a degree of self-reflection needed to minimize cognitive bias. All of these skills are acquired, and require years of practice to become proficient at and for these to become habits of thought. I mentioned that critical thinking is an excellent defense against indoctrination. One learns not to let ideas into his mind without first vetting them critically as a habit, like not crossing the street without looking first. It's not something you forget to do or need to be reminded of.
There is no sound argument that ends with "therefore God," nor that begins with that as a premise. If you hold that belief, you didn't come to it through proper critical analysis.
Consider your list of candidate hypotheses for the the history of the universe, which had only one element: God. Mine looked like the following. How did you get from mine to yours? You either never considered several of these logical possibilities, or else you dropped them for no reason valid reason:
The universe:
I. Had no prior cause
1. Always existed
2. Arose uncaused from nothing
II. Had a source
1. Unconscious substance (multiverse)
2. Conscious (deity)
No, but most people can't think critically at all except in a trivial sense such as activating a fire extinguisher to put out a fire, a sound conclusion based in current evidence and experience. We've got a few theists on RF that are skilled critical thinkers, although they did not come to their theism critically if they actually are believers. I have my doubts, and wonder if they aren't Christian atheists who like the social rituals like singing in church choir or who don't want to upset family who might not like seeing "none" as their stated religion on RF. But most are just terrible at reasoning, and it seems like the more zealous they are, the worse they do reasoning (and the less science they know, but that's a different problem).
<crickets>
I'm not surprised that you have no argument. This would have been a good chance for you to show off your critical thinking skills by making your best argument, which others would evaluate for soundness. Instead, one can just apply Hitchens' Razor to your unsupported claim.
I'm only including this because I think it's a funny collection:
< sound of a pin dropping in the next room >
< sound of a coyote faintly baying on a distant mountaintop >
< sound of a distant, barely audible ship's whistle through the fog with a buoy clanging >
< sound of a slowly dripping faucet in the next room >
< sound of distant leaves rustling >
< sound of chimes lightly ringing >
< sound of distant, barely audibly car alarm at 3 AM >
< faint sound of a train passing a great distance away >
< sound of a mouse gnawing on a crumb of bread in the far corner of the room >
< sound of paint drying >
< sound of a distant, barely audible rooster crowing dawn >
< sound of sun rising >
< sound of a pin dropping in the next room >
< sound of a coyote faintly baying on a distant mountaintop >
< sound of a distant, barely audible ship's whistle through the fog with a buoy clanging >
< sound of a slowly dripping faucet in the next room >
< sound of distant leaves rustling >
< sound of chimes lightly ringing >
< sound of distant, barely audibly car alarm at 3 AM >
< faint sound of a train passing a great distance away >
< sound of a mouse gnawing on a crumb of bread in the far corner of the room >
< sound of paint drying >
< sound of a distant, barely audible rooster crowing dawn >
< sound of sun rising >
No, that's not correct for me, but it apparently is for you. Any of these can give you the data you seek.
Mortality Rate and Characteristics of Deaths Following COVID-19 Vaccination
Covid vaccines not linked to deaths, major US study finds
Does COVID-19 vaccination cause excess deaths? : Journal of the Chinese Medical Association
I also have anecdotal data. I know of several hundred people who were vaccinated, and none died, although a half dozen unvaccinated people here died of Covid. A few vaccinated people had severe reactions, one laid up in bed for a few months, but unless they reacted to the non-viral components of the vaccine like any , it is likely that people who reacted to the vaccine thusly would have done as badly or worse with the virus. You can see what some of these inactive ingredients are here, which include salt, sugar, cholesterol, ethanol, and vinegar:
https://www.samhealth.org/-/media/S...hash=3903F042C9C072D0EB322BE53D0EC97EFC06BF4B
It's interesting that you declared the anti-vax people correct and now say that you lacked the data that you say is necessary (I agree).
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Well you just did it again, and now I can't take you seriously.
" Only atheists are sane!'
Hogwash.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
He did not say or imply that. He merely stated a fact.
Why make such egregiously false statements?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
The first two are ridiculous and go against all scientific laws... So we can toss those.
The first second one is equally ridiculous as it has no evidence whatsoever, and explains nothing about anything
So we are left with God.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
That's exactly what he implied. How could you not see that?
If there no true" therefore God" statement, only atheists have sound minds obviously.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
No, it is only a true statement that there are no rational arguments for a God existing. You can take that as a challenge.
PruePhillip
Well-Known Member
The claim in the Christian bible is that when this world is ended there is heaven. The description in Revelations states there is no more earth (it has fled away) and no more sea, no more time and no more sun. Essentially an existence without a universe. We can refer to this idea as
1 - inside, ie the universe of stars, space, physics - everything natural
2 - outside, a putative 'place' beyond the physical realm which existed before and after the universe existed. Not even the number zero exists.
This is pure belief in the bible.
So this is a realm for which nothing is known. I fully understand how you take this - I am a science fan, all my life, and was a science teacher too. I have long enjoyed challenging people who hate science, everyone from anti-vaxers to creationists.
When I put ideas forward regards first creation account in Genesis 1 I find it creeps everyone out. I call these the 'orphan verses' because they disturb creationists, ie 'God commanded the seas to bring forth life' and the same verses freak out the secularists who hold the bible is mythic.
Well, assuming the myth is correct, what makes followers of any cult leader expected to be rational people? Jim Jones' followers, some 900 of them, killed themselves with poison. The 9-11 hijackers flew planes into buildings. Christians believe an implausible idea that belief in Jesus will save them from a hell. None of this exhibits rational thought, but isn't terribly surprising behavior by followers.
Would you kill yourself for your beliefs? If so, explain why.
They should have found hobbies.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Yes and Jesus is a dying/rising savior demigod who resurrects in 3 days to bring salvation to followers. Greek mythology and a bit of Persian. Once the Hebrews learned about redeemed souls, heaven as a destination, world saviors, cosmopolitinism, salvation and so on During the Greek occupation they made a prophecy they would also get a savior.
Mark wrote a brilliant fictive story from known sources, used Jewish theology and combined it with Hellenism. That is what Jesus is. Mark uses everything from Greek myth as well as highly fictive literary style. These are definitely myths.
Of course Christianity is based on Jesus. Mithrism is based on Mithras? That's how it works?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Jesus was an actual individual, not a myth... all historians know this.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
So the idea of something that has no prior cause and just exists is so ridiculous that it can simply be dismissed.
So any hypothesis for which there is no initial evidence is also ridiculous and can be dismissed? Are you sure that is a rational approach? Think of all the things that we now know to be true or possible that once had no supporting evidence.
But you have already dismissed the idea of god as ridiculous.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
So you think that people are either correct about everything, or idiots? You think people never make false assumptions based on incomplete or misleading information?
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
How can you be a "science teacher" and believe the universe was created by magic as described in the Bible?
Genuinely interested.
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Who says? Why not?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Can you love an AI? No, because it's not capable of love.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Are will still talking about atheists? They claim that only people with unsound minds believe in God. What else do you need to know? Yes, they are making false assumptions based on misleading information!
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
If we are approaching this using only the naturalistic view of reality of course.
Lol, now you ask me to believe in the multi-verse by faith. Are you going to start the church of the multi-verse?
Only from a totally naturalistic viewpoint. There are no options left, so I have to opt for the supernatural.
KWED
Scratching head, scratching knee
So you are claiming that we can only love those who love us back.
Oh dear.