They reduce bias and assumptions, and that is why they are useful and produce valid results.
Of course I have biases, and part of critical thinking is the self-awareness of bias, and practicing setting it aside. You don't have this sort of discipline. I don;t see you even recognizing your own bias, rather you lean heavily on it.
Bias: prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be
unfair.
Oxford Languages and Google - English | Oxford Languages
Bias: a tendency to believe that some people, ideas, etc., are better than others that usually results in treating some people unfairly.
Bias Definition & Meaning | Britannica Dictionary
I am very self-aware so I know what my biases are. I am not biased against atheism, as noted in my OP, since that would be unfair, given there is no proof that God exists. I am also not biased against person or group of people compared with another. Admittedly I am biased against certain religions like Christianity since I believe that salvation for 'only' those who believe in Jesus results in treating some people unfairly. Since I know I have this bias I go out of my way to correct for it, understanding that Christians have a right to their beliefs.
You are biased against religion and particularly against the Baha'i Faith. Whenever you call it homophobic that is a bias. You have clearly demonstrated that you cannot set that bias aside and that results in treating the Baha'is unfairly simply because they have a religion with certain laws that pertain to sexual behavior. Those laws do not result in treating people unfairly since they apply to both heterosexuals and homosexuals.
Only now do you admit it is what you believe. You should have stated that before I pointed out the flawed implication in your comment.
I am not going to preface all by beliefs with "I believe." Anything I say about God is a belief, not a fact, since there are no facts about God.
These are often synonymous.
belief: the
feeling of being
certain that something
exists or is
true:
1. the feeling of being certain that something exists or is true: 2. something…
dictionary.cambridge.org
assumption: something that you
accept as
true without
question or
proof:
1. something that you accept as true without question or proof: 2. the act of…
dictionary.cambridge.org
They are not synonymous even though a belief can be based upon an assumption. If I was certain that the Baha'i Faith was true and I accepted it without question, then I would be making an assumption, but I did not do that. Rather, I researched it before I came to believe it is true.
Yet you don't post any such thing. More nonsense.
I have posted the link to the post that explains the factual evidence over and over again, too many times to even count.
None of the facts support Baha'u'llah's religious claims. His claims are not fact-based. It's a fact he existed, and that he wrote papers on religious matters, it's not a fact that his writings are true.
I never said that His claims are fact-based or that His Writings are true. Rather, I have said repeatedly that there is no proof that anyone is a Messenger of God, which means there are no facts that could ever prove that claim.
All I ever said is that there are facts about Baha'u'llah and that is evidence that
indicates who He was, but it is not proof. Yesterday I went to a lot of trouble to post the difference between proof and evidence, I suggest you review those definitions.
Right, that is why most critical thinkers are atheists.
Waiting for proof that God exists and has Messengers is not the product of critical thinking. It is irrational and unreasonable, given there has never been any such proof. If you want to say you cannot believe without proof that is different, and can be considered rational and reasonable.
Discounting all the
evidence of God's existence is also not the product of critical thinking.