Chief Walkin Eagle
Well-Known Member
^ And thats his only response lol He cant form an argument so you guys have to do it for him.
Nonbelievers, how did you lose your religion?
- Thread starter Padawanbater2
- Start date
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Chief Walkin Eagle
Well-Known Member
Nah you read it, you probably just realized Im on to something and you dont wanna hurt poor Heps pride lol.
Doer
Well-Known Member
This to me is smary.
What is it called Mr. H, when someone proposes that your pride been hurt and then says just kidding? If you resopond, it's, ah ha.
If you don't it's, ah ha.
Alternate of chioce? I know it has a better term than smary. It's a formal debate term, isn't it?
What is it called Mr. H, when someone proposes that your pride been hurt and then says just kidding? If you resopond, it's, ah ha.
If you don't it's, ah ha.
Alternate of chioce? I know it has a better term than smary. It's a formal debate term, isn't it?
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Master baiting? cn
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
A loaded question is a question with a false or questionable presupposition, and it is "loaded" with that presumption. The question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" presupposes that you have beaten your wife prior to its asking, as well as that you have a wife. If you are unmarried, or have never beaten your wife, then the question is loaded.
Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:
"Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
"No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."
Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question.
Same critique applies to propositions
Since this example is a yes/no question, there are only the following two direct answers:
"Yes, I have stopped beating my wife", which entails "I was beating my wife."
"No, I haven't stopped beating my wife", which entails "I am still beating my wife."
Thus, either direct answer entails that you have beaten your wife, which is, therefore, a presupposition of the question.
Same critique applies to propositions
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I am indescribably gratified that you use a condiment. However I have found mayonnaise to be both safer and more pleasurable. And it has stealth qualities in context. Ketchup and mustard would raise valid health/hygiene questions. cn
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
Can you explain to me where a "hidden hand" and chance can be differentiated? That's where I find it impossible, using critical thinking, to chalk it up to anything supernatural. Correlation does not imply causation, if you will. I do, however, agree that something should not be disregarded just because it seems implausible. One should always remain open to new ideas, provided they can hold up to a degree of scrutiny. It's the "I don't know, so it must be god." concept that makes no sense. The response should be "I don't know, so let's find an answer that is provable.". If, somehow, this ends with us proving that it is a higher power; then I'd be perfectly open to the idea.
I think that's what you were getting at there, feel free to steer me back on course if I'm wrong.
rpgdude
Member
You know what an apologist is? If not Google it. Good apologist can apply critical thinking in debates all day long. Proof is subjective, what you see as proof another will not. There are some very critical thinkers and skilled debaters in the world of religion, Ravi Zacharias has made many atheist from all backgrounds look like fools. Kent Hovind has some crazy ass beliefs like the world being only 6000 years old and yet again and again he can back it up with real data and tear down much of what text books teach about science. Do I think there right? Nop, but they have strengthen there convictions through critical thinking. You can apply critical thinking to both believe or not believe. It seems to me that people need to feel superior to others in some way and if they don't have a god to tell them why they are better then it must be there critical thinking skills that make them better.
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
How is proof subjective?
RawBudzski
Well-Known Member
I think buddhism makes the most sense out of them all, if the world had to convert all @ once to a currect religion I think Big Buddha wins. <3
rpgdude
Member
I don't believe any of that shit, none of it, its all superstition and wishful thinking but I disagree that critical thinking can only point you to truth and fact. There are people who would slam you and me in a debate from both a theological and scientific stand point and walk all over our critical thinking skills. I know this becaus Iv watched them do it to scientist, Harvard and yale professors and many many more people. Any way your wrong and I'm right or maybe Im wrong and your right. Ill say this I think people have wasted enough time on religion and I bet we agree the world would have been a much nicer place without the shit.No matter how intelligent the bliever is, he wouldn't put me to shame using his CTS (critical thinking skills) to prove his beliefs. The moment he says there is a god, he set aside his CTS on the subject. By simply saying "I don't know if there is or isn't a god", I would have already put more thought into it than he has.
"many come from need. A need to see your loved ones again, a need to explain your existences..."
Believing in a god to solve those ^^ issues is ignorant. You're misinformed on the true answers. You ignore all logic just to be satisfied. I'm not asking why people believe, I'm telling you that they're ignorant for believing in the first place.
I tell you that religion is bull shit, so why don't you drop your beliefs like you dropped your beliefs with santa (assuming you believed in santa)? Also, what does other people's beliefs in religion have to do with you? YOU should have enough logic and reasoning to say "No, all of this is nonsense" regardless of how many people believe.
No, I've met some stupid atheists that lack CTS. I don't have a standard.
No hard feelings at all.. Just voicing our opinions. Notice how we haven't insulted each other?
rpgdude
Member
LaVeyan Satanism FTW
Satanists do not believe in the supernatural, in neither God nor the Devil. To the Satanist, he is his own God. Satan is a symbol of Man living as his prideful, carnal nature dictates. The reality behind Satan is simply the dark evolutionary force of entropy that permeates all of nature and provides the drive for survival and propagation inherent in all living things. Satan is not a conscious entity to be worshipped, rather a reservoir of power inside each human to be tapped at will. Thus any concept of sacrifice is rejected as a Christian aberration—in Satanism there’s no deity to which one can sacrifice.
Peter H. gilmore of the Church of Satan
kpmarine
Well-Known Member
I disagree with the fact that proof is subjective. I do believe that you can interpret it differently than I, though. If you choose to believe the age of the earth is 6,000 years old (Not saying you do.), then you have to disregard certain facts that are well documented. Just because you can make an argument by leaving out facts not beneficial to your position, it does not make you right. They strengthen their beliefs through a bastardization of critical thinking, wherein they start with a confirmation bias.
I don't care if you "have a god"; I'd just like you to keep him where he belongs, firmly planted in the realm of speculation. I have no objection to you having faith, it's trying to legitimize something that can't be proven that runs counter to reason.
Hepheastus420
Well-Known Member
It doesn't matter how smart an individual is when it comes to having "faith". If somebody accepts religion as fact, they have set aside CT to honestly believe whatever it is that they believe.
Maybe a religious person has stumped a number of porfessors on different topics, but I doubt it's ever been done when it comes to religion. Tell me who are these religious people who stump scientists and college professors.
rpgdude
Member
Sounds good but men like Kent Hovind dont leave out what we call facts they attacked them showing that many are not facts and some are out right lies. He also had his on set of facts. Go watch him he is really good at making much of science look like a belief system and not facts and much that is belief appear as facts. We are never going to agree on this.
Heisenberg
Well-Known Member
Critical thinking, in the context of a skill, is a process used to judge the truth value of assumptions and access the accuracy of premises and conclusions. What you are describing is pseudo-intellectualism, or weak critical thinking. Like pseudoscience, it selectively implores tools in pursuit of satisfying a bias. Religious apologetics exploit critical thinking and debate tactics in the pretense of justifying a presupposed answer. Critical thinking is called a skill because it must be learned, like math, and has rules that are just as strict. Apologetics is critical thinking without the application of skepticism, which makes it incomplete.
It is true that many smart, well trained and educated people believe in God. An evolution scientist can have no problem going to church on Sunday. This is achieved through various cognitive bias that we are all subject to. People have many ways of compartmentalizing their beliefs, and in some certain cases a high IQ might make things worse if a person is unaware. The point is, if a person makes the positive claim that there is a God, that person is not applying critical thinking to the conclusion, even if he uses critical thinking concepts to support it. Without evidence, reason must make a partner of faith. Critical thinking prevents accepting any conclusion on faith without labeling it as such.
Some people understand critical thinking completely and openly admit they believe on faith. They ignore their intellectual side and go with other inclinations. These people are not ignorant in the sense they are uninformed, but they engage in exclusion, which is the sister of ignorance. Essentially, they exclude their faith from objections we would apply to all other areas of knowledge, all other processes which attempt to provide accurate answers.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I prefer "I don't know, which means ...I don't know what".
As for telling random chance from a subtle nonrandom signal, I agree that that is very hard. Apart from objective reasons, the one thing that makes it so hard is that humans have quite a talent for perceiving pattern where there is none, then using an unconscious confirmation bias to stack the deck in favor of their "insight".
When you say "something should not be disregarded because it's implausible", you've done a good job capturing my core sentiments. just because most ascriptions of pattern to a supernatural influence are wrong doe not guarantee that all are. With time, effort and an unfailing commitment to disciplined thought, i'm hoping that apparent instances of the supernatural, like a friend who has startlingly clear and correct memories that predate [genderless pronoun's] birth, can be brought into the fold of the understood.
Since I cannot rule out the actions of random chance, and since I am keenly aware for our human talent for apophenia to both generate and buttress our suspicions that something from beyond is reaching through to /into us, I am strongly inclined at this time to prefer random chance as one of the core engines and properties of our existence. cn
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I would be fascinated to hear your analysis of Kent Hovind's factuality. What I've seen of his doctrine can be explained by the classical method for fitting a square peg into a round hole: use enough hammer.
RawBudzski
Well-Known Member
Laa laa laaa I can't hear you. <3