Is religion good for us?

Okay Ringo, I am beginning to repeat my points. If you have nothing new to add, I'll let you have the last word. Not quite. The word "different" isn't necessarily the same as "conflicting" or "opposite". From your Message 92: If you are writing about SELFISH, INDIVIDUALIZED, COMPARTMENTALIZED "thinking" that does NOT use CLARITY, CREDIBILITY, ACCURACY, PRECISION, RELEVANCE, DEPTH, BREADTH, SIGNIFICANCE and FAIRNESS, then, by its very definition (see Critical thinking - Wikipedia), it is NOT "critical thinking".Thus, your examples of Alsace-Lorraine and lebensraum do not fit the definitions of critical thinking:Irrational, disingenuous and selfish premises (the Nazis were being "fair" to the German people, protecting them from Jews in the same way they would protect them from disease), Germany failing in its intended lebensraum goal, and the self-destruction of Germany is ample evidence that critical thinking (CLARITY, CREDIBILITY, ACCURACY, PRECISION, RELEVANCE, DEPTH, BREADTH, SIGNIFICANCE and FAIRNESS) was NOT applied. My ONLY argument? ONLY? Incorrect. See my paragraph above your quote. Also, my posts have REPEATEDLY linked Critical thinking's - Wikipedia broad intellectual criteria (such as CLARITY, CREDIBILITY, ACCURACY, PRECISION, RELEVANCE, DEPTH, BREADTH, SIGNIFICANCE and FAIRNESS) that your examples have not comprised.By ignoring the criteria for critical thinking (Critical thinking - Wikipedia), our discussion cannot move forward. No. You made at least THREE statements about critical thinking. The one we are debating is either: . . . or this one: Where/when did I specifically agree to that? ("different" isn't necessarily "conflicting") Err, Germany wasn't successful. They kinda lost the war. Remember all the corpses, damaged buildings, and angry Jews? Why, a person couldn't buy a decent wienerschnitzel in all of Frankfurt. I am at a loss for words.Lastly: Then your point is contradictive because you previously wrote: Dogma of any kind should be discouraged and critical thinking should be encouraged. We can at least agree on this general statement, yes?

It seems a good portion of our argument rests on this point. How curious that you are suddenly trying to minimize its importance by trivializing my discernment. You are repeating yourself, you already used the following ridiculous example: . (See * and ** below) You are repeating yourself, you already used the following disingenuous example: . Oh puhlease. Since my message #106, I've repeatedly touted the site Critical thinking - Wikipedia. Sometimes I placed it several times in one message. In response, you fully ignored it . . . till now. After 18 messages, with nowhere left to hide, you suddenly deride it as "schoolboy definitions". Your stale disparagement fully acknowledges a desperate counter-argument. I have already stated that Germany's lebensraum was an irrational premise to begin with. Yet, you continue to ask me to create a four-sided triangle using critical thinking. Apparently, neither the "schoolboy definition" of Critical thinking - Wikipedia NOR I are sensible enough to agree that critical thinking can produce conflicting answers such as this gem: . "In general"? Are you saying there ARE exceptions when DOGMA is BETTER than critical thinking? Really? Since you have already given your general approval FOR critical thinking (below), I don't know what more you are asking from me. I hesitate to offer any MORE mundane examples of buying cereal from a grocery store. (* Fairness, ethic of reciprocity, or The Golden Rule IS UNIVERSAL: Golden Rule - Wikipedia. This is off-topic)
(** Fairness" b. Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions. Fairness - definition of fairness by The Free Dictionary)Edited by dronester, : clarity

Oh, the irony. I have repeatedly addressed this by linking the CRITERIA (including PRINCIPLES and DISPOSITIONS) for Critical Thinking (Critical thinking - Wikipedia), and then additionally addressed this by rejecting your failed examples below . . . So, in essence you are saying, IF people CAN use critical thinking, THEN it would be a magical solution to most problems. We are nearly in agreement, but I think it more accurate to amend my earlier generic stance to: people who CAN use the FULL criteria for critical thinking (per Critical Thinking (Critical thinking - Wikipedia) will always produce "good" results. It seems you are incorrect by stating I haven't addressed this. I conceded "not always" way back in Message 67 and in Message 88, and went on to expand/clarify my position in subsequent messages. It seems you are incorrect by stating I haven't addressed this. I clarified that older and fully indoctrinated people like Buzz probably could not "replace" religious dogma with critical thinking way back in my Message 85. I also stated that critical thinking should be taught/ingrained as habit into young children in place of (displace) religious dogma, way back in Message 65.Again, your following Nazi atrocity is not an example of Critical Thinking because it is disingenuous, and it does not use "fairness*" as a criteria. Also, Critical Thinking includes the identification of prejudice, bias, propaganda, self-deception, distortion, misinformation, etc. (Critical thinking - Wikipedia) that would additionally reject your following example: Similarly, your example of Hitler/sociopath's madness of lebensraum is not an example of Critical Thinking because it does not contain accuracy, discern hidden values, judge contextually, review credibility, rationality, sensibility, and FAIRNESS. Also, Critical Thinking includes identification of prejudice, bias, propaganda, self-deception, distortion, misinformation, etc. Critical thinking - Wikipedia) that would additionally reject your following example: Lebensraum - Wikipedia Alas, I can not use critical thinking to produce a four-sided triangle or to obtain Hitler's goals.(* Fairness" b. Just to all parties; equitable: a compromise that is fair to both factions. Fairness - definition of fairness by The Free Dictionary)