What Does Critical Thinking Mean To You?

Just tell us how you really feel.

But it is not evidence about spooks or any entity that I've never heard of. If I see that the remote is not on the mantle piece, and before I can start looking, you swear to me that a poltergoose picked up the remote, I'm going to tell you to get off of the couch so I can look for the remote.Even if I don't find it there, I'm not going to pay any attention to your goose story. I'd be more likely to suspect you of dishonesty or pulling my leg, and I might even suspect that you moved the remote.What you seem to be arguing in the posts to which I am responding to is how I ought to react if I was a toddler. Under what other set of facts ought I to consider that the poltergeist story is possible correct, regardless if I've ever heard of them.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yep.If you accept something without evidence for it you are not using critical thinking.If you reject something without evidence against it you are not using critical thinking.If there is neither evidence for nor evidence against then the logical conclusion is that it is neither validated nor invalidated.Edited by RAZD, : ]

So when people reject God only because there is no evidence for God, rather than because there is evidence against God, then that is not critical thinking?I don't buy that at all.

Does not critical thinking involve the proper use of logic? Do you not agree that the absence of evidence is only evidence for the absence of evidence?Is it really critical to make such a decision when no evidence points either way?Please evaluate your biases before replying.

I don't think it is critical thinking, or even intellectually honest, to "reject god" only because there is no evidence for it, because to reject something would mean that you have evidence for it; there must be something to actually reject. Instead, the honest position (and one that many many atheists take) is not of rejection, but one of simply not accepting the claim you have posited and still being open to good evidence. "I've heard your evidence and listened to your claim, but I have found it lacking". Religionists are the only ones that see non-acceptance of their god as rejection. Most atheists are still open to the idea of god being real, we just have no good reason to believe it yet and thus, live life as if there is no god because there isn't good evidence for one.

Shamans of various kinds have been claiming spirits and gods for as long as mankind has existed. Just pay them and they'll smooth the way!You'd think that, just once, they would come up with some evidence!But with the lack of evidence, this seems to be the biggest scam ever perpetrated on mankind, and mankind is willing to accept it as it promises something everyone wants! Who won't bet long odds on everlasting life!???(P.T. Barnum was a piker compared to our shaman class!)

I never there had to be.The fact that there is no positive evidence for anything supernatural does not mean the rest of the evidence that such things do not exist goes away.
Think of it as positive evidence that claims of anything supernatural are the same as other imagined claims of con-men (as Coyote talks about in his post).
There is plenty of "positive evidence" for such an idea. Therefore, there is not "no evidence" for any supernatural claim. Exactly. Based upon your evidence (your familiarity) with remotes and how they generally get lost.
With this... you're not dealing with "no evidence." It would work for a toddler, yes. But it works for anything "new."
I'm not claiming that it has to be about a poltergeist or the supernatural.
In fact, I have said many times that the supernatural is a topic (here at EvC, anyway) for which we have lots of evidence... all pointing to say that it doesn't exist. Therefore, there is not "no evidence."I'm talking about any new scenario.Maybe a story about sports history that is new to you.
I don't know what is "new to you" so an example is difficult. But I will attempt something like this:

quote:

---

The height of the net for the sport of Sepak Takraw is 5'1".

---

Now, I'm guessing that this is new information for you?
If so... then you likely have no idea what the sport of Sepak Takraw even is, if it should use a net in the first place or if so... what the height of that net should be.
If this is new to you (and you do not have to be a toddler) then you would have "no evidence" for this story.Therefore... for you to reject this claim simply because you have "no evidence" then you would not be using Critical Thinking.
Even if you accept this claim while it has "no evidence" you would also not be using Critical Thinking.That's what I'm talking about when I say "no evidence." It's new to you and if you're going to use Critical Thinking to make a decision... then you have to do some sort of test first. Research the subjects or anything similar to the subjects. Then you can use Critical Thinking to reject or accept the claim (or maybe even claim that there is not yet enough information to make a decision.)

And neither do I.There is not "no evidence" for God. Anyone telling you such a thing is selling something. (Thank you, Princess Bride...)In the simplest terms... as Coyote has said, there is lots of positive evidence showing how "God" is the same as any other imaginary claim made by con-men trying to get something (not necessarily money).This is lots of evidence that God does not exist.
There is lots of other evidence that God does not exist as well... like direct evidence of searching for God where people say He is and finding nothing (like finding your remote was not stolen by ghosts).This evidence allows us to base a decision about God's existence using Critical Thinking and it points towards the answer that "God does not exist."

This statement is absolutely correct.But atheists do not "not reject God."
They actually do "reject God." (Or, at least I do.. )I just don't reject God because there is no evidence to do such a thing.I reject God because there is lots of evidence about God and it points towards God not existing.As Coyote has explained... lots of positive evidence showing how claims about God are the same as other non-existing claims of con-men trying to get things (not necessarily money).
Lots of evidence of searching for God in places and finding that no God is there.
Lots of evidence of searching for the results of God's existence in places (prayer, love, happiness...) and finding that no God is there.
Lots of evidence of people claiming imaginary sources when they don't understand things.I certainly agree that it has not been absolutely proven. However, I would also agree that no other statement of reality including things like Gravity and Evolution have not been absolutely proven either.That's not what "evidence" does. Evidence and the process of Critical Thinking does not guarantee absolute truth. It's just our best known method for finding accurate results. If you're honestly after accurate results of reality, then you should follow the evidence and what Critical Thinking tells us. If you're after something else... then such conclusions are not required.

Sometimes it's necessary to make a decision when no significant evidence points either way. You might not want to call it "critical thinking" but you still have to make the decision. In such cases, no monsters is the default position.

As do I, given the proper company. But when having a rational discussion, I can acknowledge that saying "no god exists" or "I reject god" is just as silly as saying "I know god exists". But between you and me, I believe no gods to exist. None. I conduct my life in that manner because I see no reason not to. Maybe it's semantics, but aren't you actually just rejecting the claims made about god? To actually reject god means that you accept that it exists but are rejecting it. I don't see how you can reject something you don't think exists. You can reject an idea because the idea actually exists, but you aren't rejecting what the idea puts forth. Maybe my English is bad or I am getting hung up on a word. However, A LOT of miscommunication happens in this very department with strawman that religionists create. It is used to bolster their belief that atheism in just as dogmatic, and rightfully so. "there is no god" is only held by a small portion and is not required. But those only apply to certain claims about certain god beliefs. There still could be an actual god that you aren't rejecting, but only because its existence or nature hasn't been put forward as an option, nor has any evidence presented itself for examination.Fuck, my distinction is getting muddy and confusing and I sound like a deist rationalizing a god that leaves zero evidence and is utterly worthless for anything other than mental masturbation.Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

The way you seem to be using the term... yes, maybe I am just rejecting the claims made about God. That point is certainly nothing I can argue with. Yeah.. there's a huge difference to the internal mindset between "dogmatically following" and "confidently currently understanding due to the overwhelming evidence." The issue is that the effective external resulting actions... are pretty much identical.Describing the internal differing mindset and explaining the similar external results to someone who doesn't really want you to be able to make sense of it anyway... is taxing Agreed. I'm certainly assuming a normal-general-society definition of "God" as opposed to "any concept that anyone ever discusses and classifies as God." Which, when getting specific... can cause a lot of confusion. Eat two babies and call me in the morning.

For you, but not for a believer. The default position is your worldview beliefs: that will be the basis for any decision without clear answers, and it will not be critical thinking so much as blind reaction.

you're not being critical of your thoughts.That's when you're not thinking critically.