Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What Does Critical Thinking Mean To You?
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 260 of 339 (744694)
12-14-2014 6:59 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by Jon
12-14-2014 6:53 PM


Re: Critical Thinking Remix
Jon writes:
Belief isn't science. We can't say that XYZ will falsify the theory and ABC support it.
Does that not depend on the particular belief and the willingness of the believer to examine evidence honestly?
There are lots of folk that believe that one or more of the Biblical Floods actually happened.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by Jon, posted 12-14-2014 6:53 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Jon, posted 12-14-2014 7:50 PM jar has seen this message but not replied
 Message 264 by Phat, posted 12-15-2014 8:12 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 265 of 339 (744749)
12-15-2014 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 264 by Phat
12-15-2014 8:12 AM


Re: Critical Thinking Remix
Huh?
Yes, in the Wizard of Oz the tornado actually happened but was that really what you were trying to ask?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by Phat, posted 12-15-2014 8:12 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Phat, posted 12-15-2014 8:39 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 268 of 339 (744753)
12-15-2014 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 267 by Phat
12-15-2014 8:39 AM


Re: Critical Thinking Remix
Phat writes:
In the Bible Story, did the Flood actually happen?
That is where the problems start cropping up. There are at least two mutually exclusive Biblical flood stories in Genesis; if one actually happens in the story then the other cannot.
While the Wizard of Oz is internally consistent the Bible is often internally inconsistent. We can say that in the Wizard of Oz the tornado actually happened but we cannot say that in the Bible either of the Biblical flood myths actually happened.
But wait, there's more.
In the Bible stories the two different and mutually exclusive flood myths are all mushed up together as though they were one tale.
We know that scripture was edited with parts added or removed and that tales evolved over time totally changing meanings and import but the versions are separated and given different attribution. This is quite clear when we look at the evolution of the Great Commission as retold over time and in the revisionist Gospel of John but here the different traditions are not separated or given different attributions.
So the critical question that begs to be answered is "Why mush up two mutually exclusive tales into one with no attribution?"

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Phat, posted 12-15-2014 8:39 AM Phat has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 275 of 339 (744953)
12-17-2014 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 274 by Straggler
12-17-2014 6:04 AM


Re: Critical Thinking Remix
Stating that one's knowledge is incomplete is very different to stating that one believes that the beliefs they hold are wrong.
The first almost goes without saying in all but the most pedantic of debate situations (which admittedly is the environment in which we are often in here) and the second is a recipe for cognitive dissonance on steroids.
You totally lost me there.
How is admitting that you can say with a very high degree of certainty that your beliefs are wrong a recipe for cognitive dissonance on steroids?
Isn't that why a reasonable person tests a map against reality and does not believe the bridge is there just because the map shows one?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Straggler, posted 12-17-2014 6:04 AM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by Phat, posted 12-17-2014 10:47 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 278 of 339 (744965)
12-17-2014 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by Phat
12-17-2014 10:47 AM


Re: Critical Thinking Remix
Phat writes:
I am more likely leaning towards the idea that my perception, feeling, and logic is incomplete. As I am driving up the "road" the map shows a bridge, but I can only trust my senses,emotions, and feelings. Evidence is not needed because I have driven this road many times, the weather is nice thus there is no logical reason the bridge may be out. Would you not say that my absolute knowledge of whether the bridge is intact is incomplete, rather than "likely wrong"?
In the case of the bridge the reasonable and thinking position is to assume the bridge is not there until you visually confirm that the bridge is there.
When the topic turns to something that is nearly impossible to verify like the belief that there is a God then I would think the only reasonable position is to believe your concept of God is wrong.
What evidence is available?
Well there is the evidence that there have been many many concepts of gods and so far all that can be tested have been found to be false. Is there any possible reason to think your concept of god is any more accurate than any of the others?
What about the concept of "Christ"? Again, the only sources for that are the Bible stories but even there there is no single pattern but rather many often mutually exclusive ones and evidence that the Jesus mythos evolved over time.
You talk about trusting emotions and feelings but again the evidence is that those two things can and very often do override reality and truth and create falsehoods. Emotion and feelings should always be suspect.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by Phat, posted 12-17-2014 10:47 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2014 12:01 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 283 of 339 (744974)
12-17-2014 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by RAZD
12-17-2014 12:01 PM


Re: Critical Thinking Remix -- what is wrong with saying "I don't know" ???
There is nothing wrong with saying "I don't know" but that is irrelevant to the point I was making.
jar writes:
When the topic turns to something that is nearly impossible to verify like the belief that there is a God then I would think the only reasonable position is to believe your concept of God is wrong.
"I don't know." is a great position in the absence of belief and is certainly a far more reasonable and logical position that saying "I believe" but I was discussing what can be said should someone take the position of belief.
I that case it seems that the reasonable position is to assume that your belief(s) are almost certainly wrong.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2014 12:01 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2014 1:52 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 288 of 339 (744989)
12-17-2014 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by RAZD
12-17-2014 1:52 PM


Re: Critical Thinking Remix -- what is wrong with saying "I don't know" ???
RAZD writes:
How can you have any certainty when you don't know? Having certainty is illogical\irrational without evidence that would remove the doubt of not knowing.
Well I did say "almost certainly wrong" and in Message 278 I outlined the reasoning and evidence.
quote:
When the topic turns to something that is nearly impossible to verify like the belief that there is a God then I would think the only reasonable position is to believe your concept of God is wrong.
What evidence is available?
Well there is the evidence that there have been many many concepts of gods and so far all that can be tested have been found to be false. Is there any possible reason to think your concept of god is any more accurate than any of the others?
What about the concept of "Christ"? Again, the only sources for that are the Bible stories but even there there is no single pattern but rather many often mutually exclusive ones and evidence that the Jesus mythos evolved over time.
You talk about trusting emotions and feelings but again the evidence is that those two things can and very often do override reality and truth and create falsehoods. Emotion and feelings should always be suspect.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2014 1:52 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 291 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2014 11:39 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 293 of 339 (745045)
12-18-2014 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 291 by RAZD
12-18-2014 11:39 AM


Re: Critical Thinking Remix -- what is wrong with saying "I don't know" ???
RAZD writes:
Curiously that is not actual evidence that god/s do not exist.
Well then it's a damn good thing I never made such a claim.
Learn to read.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2014 11:39 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2014 4:15 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 306 of 339 (745070)
12-18-2014 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by RAZD
12-18-2014 4:15 PM


Re: Critical Thinking Remix -- backup ... what?
But what did I omit from the quote?
I have said all along that what one believes about a God is almost certainly wrong.
I am saying that what we say about God or god is almost certainly wrong.
I went on to clarify that by pointing out that so far all the gods or Gods we can test have been shown to be wrong.
If that is not talking about aspects of gods or descriptions of gods I'm not at all sure how to make it clearer.
RAZD writes:
So you are saying that you believe the bridge is there, but that you are likely wrong about the shape, color and construction style of the bridge ... which seems a bit nit-picky imho ...
Perhaps it is nit-picky but it is what wars and oppression have often been based upon.
RAZD writes:
Would you not agree that if you do not know if the bridge exists, that any discussion of shape, color or construction would be opinion unbased on evidence?
Which is why if you look back I specifically pointed out the difference between the bridge analogy and the concept of a deity. I then went on to present the evidence that is available, the fact that every god that has been tested has been shown to be false.
So my opinion that any God or god that we can describe beyond the very basics is likely wrong seems to be supported.
Yet there are still killings in the name of some god, bigotry and oppression in the name of some god going on even in the US.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by RAZD, posted 12-18-2014 4:15 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by Phat, posted 12-28-2014 7:13 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 309 of 339 (745829)
12-28-2014 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 308 by Phat
12-28-2014 7:13 AM


Re: Critical Thinking Remix -- backup ... what?
Phat writes:
Your theory is only correct if God does not in some way interact with humanity. God is not merely some unknowable Being whom we "test" in regards to our reactions concerning said concept. God is alive.
What does that even mean?
AbE:
What how is it even related to anything I said and you even quoted?
How is your post evidence of critical thinking or was it meant as an example of not using critical thinking?
Edited by TrueChristian, : see AbE:

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 308 by Phat, posted 12-28-2014 7:13 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(3)
Message 314 of 339 (745920)
12-29-2014 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by ringo
12-29-2014 11:05 AM


Re: Critical Thinking Remix -- backup ... what?
ringo writes:
True Christians seem to get smitten along with the rest of us.
I remember getting smittened (smoted? ) once by this little red headed girl. I was smoted so hard I joined the Royal Ambassadors acause they said I'd get hands on experience of spiritual growth but she jess said "Hands off" and that my growth was far from spiritual.
Edited by TrueChristian, : appalin spallin

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by ringo, posted 12-29-2014 11:05 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 325 of 339 (791970)
09-28-2016 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 324 by Taq
09-28-2016 10:24 AM


Re: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Remix<<<<<<<<<<<<
Taq writes:
Then why does religion ask you to shut off those reasoning skills and just believe?
That really depends on the question asked doesn't it?
When it comes to the supernatural are there any other options than accepting things on Faith?
In other areas do all religions ask people to shut off reasoning?

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by Taq, posted 09-28-2016 10:24 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Taq, posted 09-28-2016 10:45 AM jar has replied
 Message 330 by Coyote, posted 09-28-2016 6:20 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 327 of 339 (791972)
09-28-2016 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Taq
09-28-2016 10:45 AM


Re: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Remix<<<<<<<<<<<<
Taq writes:
That is exactly the same as believing in things that aren't true. They also have to be accepted on faith.
It is the same process but not quite the same functionally.
Taq writes:
If there is evidence to back a claim then it isn't called religion.
Not quite true. There is evidence to back up much that is included in religion. Religion is far more complex than just the supernatural. There really is a Mount Olympus.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Taq, posted 09-28-2016 10:45 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by Taq, posted 09-28-2016 12:17 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 329 of 339 (791977)
09-28-2016 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 328 by Taq
09-28-2016 12:17 PM


Re: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Remix<<<<<<<<<<<<
Taq writes:
Believing in the existence of a Mount Olympus is not a religion. Believing that there are deities who sit atop Mount Olympus is a religion.
Believing that David Koresh was a real person is not a religion. Believing that he was the second coming of Jesus is (or was) a religion.
True but not sure what point there is in all that. In both of those examples there actually is evidence that can be used to confirm or deny the assumption.
But that is not true in many aspects of spiritual believes; in religion.
Critical thinking is one tool that can be used to analyze such claims. Folk have climbed and explored Mount Olympus and no Gods were in residence nor was there any indication that they had ever had the presence there that was claimed. David Koresh died and the world did not experience a second coming.
But neither of those test show there will not be a second coming or that Gods do not exist.
But again, religion is far more complex than even those examples. Religions have sets of rules and guidelines, histories like any other organization, mythos. Religious mythos can be every bit as significant as national mythos or racial mythos or any cultural mythos.
Many things accepted on Faith may well turn out to have been false but equally may well serve a valuable purpose even when not confirmed.
Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 328 by Taq, posted 09-28-2016 12:17 PM Taq has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 331 of 339 (791980)
09-29-2016 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by Coyote
09-28-2016 6:20 PM


Re: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Remix<<<<<<<<<<<<
Coyote writes:
jar writes:
In other areas do all religions ask people to shut off reasoning?
See the flood and young earth arguments in our other threads.
I'm not at all sure how that is relevant. Yes, some religious sects do require the members to shut off reasoning but they are really the exception rather than the rule. Even within Christianity neither a Young Earth of literal Biblical Flood are common beliefs nor are either (as well as many other similar ideas) a requirement for belief in most Christian chapters.

My Sister's Website: Rose Hill Studios My Website: My Website

This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Coyote, posted 09-28-2016 6:20 PM Coyote has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024