Fundamentalism versus Critical Thinking

quote:

---

This goes both ways. Nobody has conclusively proved that any major belief on this planet is a lie. They never will.

---

So, which one is right?They can't ALL be correct, because they each conflict in dogma with the others.Each of them have exactly the same quality of checkable evidence, too.None.

quote:

---

Reality is at best agnosticism, Schraff. You cannot prove anything else.

---

That's why I'm an agnostic.

Of course they can all be right as well as all be wrong.What you may mean is that they cannot all be 100% right. That is likely true, but it is also irrelevant.As a human, we are expected to examine beliefs, test those beliefs against reason and reality. We should not blindly accept that which reason or reality shows to be false.A religion may well get most things right, some things wrong. That does not make the religion false, anymore than one wrong answer on a test means all of the answers were wrong.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

A religion may well get most things right, some things wrong. That does not make the religion false, anymore than one wrong answer on a test means all of the answers were wrong.

---

True.But I doubt there are many people here on these boards who will tell you that it doesn't matter which beliefs are correct.

But this is so generalized. There are many many shades of belief which deal with the degree to which God is 'in control'. Some beliefs are like a soft determinism, where God could create and then step back, others will say that God planned every little occasion. But you have changed the goal. Originally the question had to do with 'what we make of our lives' and now it is 'how we should live'. Not that I am being obstinately argumentative, but there is a huge difference in how people field those two questions, just as there is a huge difference in how people think God wants them to live, and the degree of control they have over the course of their life. Consider the caste system. Followers of Hinduism may find a big difference in 'what control do we have over our lives' and how should I live my life'. I get the gist, but it is wrong to assume that people only seek medical help if they are atheist, or that no non-religious person has ever been neglectful. Likewise, there are many, many people who destroy nature for personal motive, and many, many religious people who strive to preserve nature as part of their religion or God's creation. Is pantheism wrong? You seem to lump all religions under the category of 'christianity' and complain about only the fringe radicals. The truth is, you will find people of every stripe and every thought process, both in and out of relgion. Too too general. Not all religious people think this, at all. And, you still need to prove that something is a lie before you can say anyone is believing a lie. That is reality. How do you know anyone is 'comfortable' contemplating life after death? How do I know you are not comfortable with the idea that there is no life after death? Isn't part of our belief system finding what we are comfortable with, and can't any belief system have areas whish are uncomfortable? If atheism is a good fit for you, I would imagine it is comfortable. I don't see much of any critical thinking in the way that you over-generalize, paint balck and white pictures of
'reality', and believe what people have 'told you' about their religion. Does it ever cross your mind to find out what people 'mean' when they tell you about their religion? If someone tells you life is part of God's plan, there are so many ways they could mean that, and so many ways they could act on it. You might be surprised to find out that you agree.Edited by anastasia, : No reason given.

I move that the words "prove", "proof" and "proven" be stricken from the English language.Of course it's impossible to "prove" that a "belief" is a "lie". But we have overwhelming evidence that a lot of beliefs are wrong.Are you going to sweep wrongness under the rug because it isn't an intentional lie? Are you going to demand "conclusive proof" while you're drowning in evidence?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

So, from within yourself, with no external influences, you came to the realization that there was a God, and that Jesus Christ was His Son? Are you sure you didn't have any help with that at all!?Once you answer this question, I will be able to continue with the rest of what you've said.J0N1CU5 M4X1MU5

What does that mean? How can we even know which beliefs are correct? They can only make sense to us, and beliefs, under all the pomp of religious ritual and individual gods, are all pretty simple philosophies. 'Correct' is, correct for you. That is not to say that I have ruled out the idea of any one belief having more of the answers, or all of the answers, but that only proves that the belief is 'right' for me.How do you rate your belief? Does it provide you with the answers to your questions?

It is certainly true that I had outside influence. What I disagree with is the notion that people base their beliefs solely on cultural influence. IF God is, God is God in India, Alabama, Colorado, and Australia.I happen to believe that I met this universal God. Perhaps the notion of Jesus as Gods character was taught to me, but I embraced the belief because it makes more sense than talking to a darn cloud!

That argument is getting old. If the Sun is square, it's square no matter how round we see it to be. Your notion that if something can be dreamed up, then it's okay to believe in it is ridiculous. So are you saying that if you didn't live in a country that was 88% Christian, and smashing that Christian-ness into you everywhere you turned--which is sadly what happens in this country (U.S.)--that you still would've come to define God in the same way as you do? If parts of your God are within you, and other parts based on cultural influence, how do you distinguish the two? God permits slavery, but you disapprove; clearly you've chosen to accept the cultural influence over God's influence. Where do you draw the line? How do you decide? Pick 'n' choose? Is God's power limited in what you choose to accept? Doesn't sound so Almighty to me.J0N1CU5 M4X1MU5 Edited by Jonicus Maximus, : Coding...Edited by Jonicus Maximus, : Grammar...

Lets run God through our critical thinking versus Fundamentalism machine:My presupposition is that God exists. It is indeed a positive truth claim that is only important to me. I seek not to attempt to prove it to others. I was "touched" or changed by an event. That the event happened at a charismaniacal church versus a Hindu Temple is irrelevant to me. I have no idea how I would behave in another culture. I have no evidence that leads me to believe that God is not universal, however.It all boils down to beliefs and not facts.

That the Sun is square would be a belief, and I wouldn't be any more comfortably knowing there are people out there who want to believe something like that without questions than I am knowing that there are people like you out there who will believe anything religious on Faith alone. This puts too much power into the hands of the religious leaders, who are many out to destroy critical thinking; the very process used to bring us into our great age of science and technology.J0N1CU5 M4X1MU5

what makes you think that I am incapable of original thought?It is true that my beliefs were founded on cultural influence...but the feelings that led to those beliefs were mine alone...no leader brainwashed me.I must be off to work...so pheel phree to add to this discussion.

quote:

---

Have you provided "evidence" for yours?

---

Evidence that leads me to conclude that without evidence a skeptic can fly just as blindly?In Message 37 you declared: in response to anastasia comment in Message 35 that critical thinking can lead to religion.In Message 41 I asked that you share, by use of critical thinking, what evidence leads you to conclude that thinking of any kind never led anyone to religion?I stated in that post that following anyone blindly is not good either.I also stated that, IMO, people can choose to follow a religion after careful analysis and evaluation just as they can choose to leave a religion after careful analylsis and evaluation. Again it depends on the specific needs of the person.You limited response in Message 44: But nothing that shows how critical thinking lead you to your all encompassing conclusion.In Message 48, I again requested that you provide the critical thinking process that lead you to conclude that intelligent effort never led anyone to religion.I also stated that without evidence a skeptic can fly just as blindly.Now my comment may be worded incorrectly depending on what you consider to be blind faith. I consider blind faith to be that one believes what one is told without personal investigation. Given that meaning I feel that there can also be blind skepticism. People are capable of choosing to disbelieve without personal investigation just as well as one can choose to believe without personal investigation.Now I find it improbable that you have personally investigated every single religion to come to the conclusion that all religions require blind following.So now again and final time I ask what evidence did you carefully analyze and evaluate that lead you to conclude that thinking of any kind never led anyone to religion?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

I know you cannot answer the question of what you would believe if you happened to have had your experience while worshipping in a Buddhist temple, but that brings up another interesting question.How come God doesn't "save" people who have never heard of Him (or Jesus)? How come only those people who are in an Evangelical Christian setting or have been proselytized to are "saved"?How come a Buddhist in his mountain temple or a Hindu in a remote village in India or an animist in the Congo who have never come in contact with a Christian missionary are never "filled with the Holy Spirit" and independently dedicate their lives to Christ?Now, that would be powerful evidence for the existence of a living God and His Son, Jesus as savior of mankind.How come it doesn't happen? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Nothing at all, what I am saying is that you are not thinking originally when you come to the conclusion that God exists. Some (if not most or all) of what you are using to make your decision is culturally influenced. You are not stopping to analyze the situation. I've been in chat with you, watched you "critially think" about your religious beliefs, and you always are off somewhere... something's always just not right with your thinking.It always seems like you assume some truth, that there is something that you need to explain on a spiritual level. Anyway, I don't think that's what this thread is for. All I know is that to find the beliefs you want from certain feelings there are many religious. If you are in need of meaning in life, many religions offer that. There's no need to pick Christianity? And I doubt your culture doesn't get you exposed to other religions... something about the way the preacher preached God and Jesus to you that drew you in... something about what he did, or the way he did it. It wasn't just a free choice... you were slightly manipulated, like buying one car over another. Unless... did you investigate Hindu before settling with Yahweh?Anywhoo... off to classicus. Good topic, man, though I have no idea what it's really about.J0N1CU5 M4X1MU5