Critical Thinking and Theism/Atheism

[A Vestigial Mote]

So... is there a point to all this?

Yes there is, and you conveniently touched on it here:

Yes, if we believe the Bible when it says that the names of those created for salvation were recorded in the Book of Life from the foundation of the world.

That's one HUGE "if" to some people. Myself included. I don't believe it. Not by a long shot. And all those quotes you patently accept as "true" are completely dependent on The Bible also being true. That's circular - using the source material for the quote as the evidence to its truth. Sure The Bible contains some nuggets of wisdom... but it also contain some nuggets of sheep manure. Crass of me? Yes. Honest of me? Absolutely.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Logic is not mentioned, though "philosophy and vain deceit" are lumped together.

Reason is mentioned:
Isa 1:18-31 - "Come let us reason together." The rest says essentially, Obey me (Isaiah speaking for Yahweh) or I (supposedly Yahweh) will whack you.

Wisdom is always seen as doing what the writer says to do in the name or authority of Yahweh.

An oversimplification on your part, since:

1. There is no Bible law which blesses the person in the breaking of it--unless you'd like to show how things like adultery and intoxication are societal boons.

2. Wisdom isn't "do this or God whacks you," it's knowledge applied to lengthen one's life and happiness per #1 above.

3. God does nothing illogical or non-reasoned in the Bible, and terms used in the OT are not Greek ideas and the thoughts are mostly Hebraic in nature and not Hellenic.

4. I constantly, daily, see examples of God's logic available in the scriptures and in creation.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Your message to @Axe Elf

Good luck as an indentured servant to an ancient superstition.

Brilliant.

It's funny, when I was still a Christian I used to give all the same arguments Axe is giving to me right now. It's so sad that religion makes otherwise intelligent people say such nonsense.

Ancient slavery was a form of indentured servitude? There may have been a little bit of that going on, but to characterize history in such a way, that debt slavery was this widespread institution that dominated ancient cultures, it's just fakoking ridiculous to claim.

The VAST majority of slaves in ancient times were people who were taken as a result of conquest, sold to slave traders, and then the slave traders loaded them up in caravans and went far and wide selling them off to whomever wanted them.

 

[dfnj]

Logic and the rest of critical thinking present information that is eternally true. Assuming an afterlife, then learning such information is far more important than learning information that just goes irrelevant or obsolete. Yet most theists, who supposedly believe in an afterlife, are less competent at critical thinking than most atheists, who don't believe in an afterlife. Yes, that's a dogmatic statement, but anyone who uses social media can see that it's clearly true. The few theists who learn critical thinking are the smart ones, who can match or beat the smartest atheists. But smart people are the minority. Among people of average IQ who engage in philosophical discussion, the atheists are more rational.

I assert that the reason for this reversal is scripture, which tells people to believe what they are told, rather than figure things out for themselves.

You do realize making the statement "the atheists are more rational" is purely a subjective opinion. You could argue in a similar way the atheists do not have intuition because they are unable to make leaps of faith.

My problem with atheists is they do not accept a theist's faith as being valid. For a theist, faith comes first, like an axiom, then beliefs like the afterlife comes second. A theist "chooses" to have faith. And then based on faith, a context of meaning is created around one's life.

For the atheist, the idea of choosing to have faith is irrational. An atheist is looking to make a "decision" about religion based on evidence. There's nothing wrong with basing your life on evidence based decisions. It's just that many theists argue having God in their life and a feeling of divine presence in reality is a more meaningful way to live. Of course, this is a subjective judgment just like yours with regards to "more rational".

Can we at least agree subjective opinions are neither "right" nor "wrong". People choose a favorite ice cream flavor. Sometimes the reason why they choose one ice cream flavor over another is based on NO reason. "Like" is a choice.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

You do realize making the statement "the atheists are more rational" is purely a subjective opinion. You could argue in a similar way the atheists do not have intuition because they are unable to make leaps of faith.

My problem with atheists is they do not accept a theist's faith as being valid. For a theist, faith comes first, like an axiom, then beliefs like the afterlife comes second. A theist "chooses" to have faith. And then based on faith, a context of meaning is created around one's life.

For the atheist, the idea of choosing to have faith is irrational. An atheist is looking to make a "decision" about religion based on evidence. There's nothing wrong with basing your life on evidence based decisions. It's just that many theists argue having God in their life and a feeling of divine presence in reality is a more meaningful way to live. Of course, this is a subjective judgment just like yours with regards to "more rational".

Can we at least agree subjective opinions are neither "right" nor "wrong". People choose a favorite ice cream flavor. Sometimes the reason why they choose one ice cream flavor over another is based on NO reason. "Like" is a choice.

Faith is not a path to truth my friend.

Faith, if it is EVER right about anything, is ONLY right by accident.

The only thing in this universe that either requires OR desires your faith are con men trying to deceive you with otherwise unconvincing lies.

Deceivers NEED believers, and THAT is why religion and religious leaders ask you for your faith.

 

[dfnj]

Faith is not a path to truth my friend.

Faith, if it is EVER right about anything, is ONLY right by accident.

The only thing in this universe that either requires OR desires your faith are con men trying to deceive you with otherwise unconvincing lies.

Deceivers NEED believers, and THAT is why religion and religious leaders ask you for your faith.

Faith, as I said, is more like an axiom. Truth is what follows.

Not all religions are about deceiving believers by corrupt religious leaders only seeking power by leveraging the weak minded.

I'm not asking you to have faith. I'm just explaining why people of faith choose to have irrational beliefs. If you are going to try to convince me people who have faith are irrational you are wasting your time because I agree with you. The difference between you and me is I don't think having faith is a "bad" thing.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Faith, as I said, is more like an axiom. Truth is what follows.

Not all religions are about deceiving believers by corrupt religious leaders only seeking power by leveraging the weak minded.

I'm not asking you to have faith. I'm just explaining why people of faith choose to have irrational beliefs. If you are going to try to convince me people who have faith are irrational you are wasting your time because I agree with you. The difference between you and me is I don't think have faith is a "bad" thing.

Faith isn't a bad thing, at least certain kinds of faith.

I have faith that the plane I'm about to board will fly, but it's a faith borne of evidence whereby I've seen planes take off and land, I've seen their contrails high in the sky indicating that a plane has recently passed by overhead. I have faith that the ground crews have done their jobs to ensure the plane will operate as it was designed. I have faith in the pilot to get me to the destination. I have faith in the airline company who hired the pilot and the ground crews, etc...

The faith the religious ask you to give is the detrimental kind, the kind that isn't based on evidence, blind faith.

 

[dfnj]

Faith isn't a bad thing, at least certain kinds of faith.

I have faith that the plane I'm about to board will fly, but it's a faith borne of evidence whereby I've seen planes take off and land, I've seen their contrails high in the sky indicating that a plane has recently passed by overhead. I have faith that the ground crews have done their jobs to ensure the plane will operate as it was designed. I have faith in the pilot to get me to the destination. I have faith in the airline company who hired the pilot and the ground crews, etc...

The faith the religious ask you to give is the detrimental kind, the kind that isn't based on evidence, blind faith.

As I said, faith is more like an axiom. It is accepted as being true without any evidence. Truth and falsehood follows based on what axioms you accept as being true.

There is a big distinction between "choice" and "decision". A "decision" is based on evidence and reason. Many times, a choice is based on no reason and no evidence. Many people "choose" to have faith.

I get it that having faith may not be for you. But your language is like faith can only come from having evidence. And therefore, because there is no evidence, having faith is irrational. Again, you are missing the point of what I am saying. People have faith precisely because there is no evidence to support their belief. Is it "right", is it "wrong", is it "good", is it "bad", is purely a subjective judgment.

Having the axiom, "God exists" or "How we live our lives is relevant to God" is a choice. Some people choose it. Some people do not.

On the grand cosmic timescale everything we think or do is probably meaningless. But it is also meaningless that it is meaningless. So we might as well choose meaningful. And we might as well go ALL the way and choose meaningful and having divine purpose in the eyes of an existing God. What difference does it make?

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

As I said, faith is more like an axiom. It is accepted as being true without any evidence. Truth and falsehood follows based on what axioms you accept as being true.

There is a big distinction between "choice" and "decision". A "decision" is based on evidence and reason. Many times, a choice is based on no reason and no evidence. Many people "choose" to have faith.

I get it that having faith may not be for you. But your language is like faith can only come from having evidence. And therefore, because there is no evidence, having faith is irrational. Again, you are missing the point of what I am saying. People have faith precisely because there is no evidence to support their belief. Is it "right", is it "wrong", is it "good", is it "bad", is purely a subjective judgment.

Having the axiom, "God exists" or "How we live our lives is relevant to God" is a choice. Some people choose it. Some people do not.

On the grand cosmic timescale everything we think or do is probably meaningless. But it is also meaningless that it is meaningless. So we might as well choose meaningful. And we might as well go ALL the way and choose meaningful and having divine purpose in the eyes of an existing God. What difference does it make?

I'm sorry, but no... Faith, the kind of faith the religious ask you to give, is not an axiom.

Having faith isn't irrational, as long as its faith in something that you can verify is true. When a pastor comes to you and asks you to have faith that Jesus used his magic spit to make the deaf hear and the blind see, you shouldn't give it to him.

You should ask yourself if the thing they're asking you to have faith in is something that has been verified before. In other words, have you ever seen anyone else in the world who can spit on their hands, wipe the spit in somebody's eye who was blind, and the blind person all of a sudden will be able to see?

If the answer is no, then you withhold your faith

 

[dfnj]

I'm sorry, but no... Faith, the kind of faith the religious ask you to give, is not an axiom.

Having faith isn't irrational, as long as its faith in something that you can verify is true. When a pastor comes to you and asks you to have faith that Jesus used his magic spit to make the deaf hear and the blind see, you shouldn't give it to him.

You should ask yourself if the thing they're asking you to have faith in is something that has been verified before. In other words, have you ever seen anyone else in the world who can spit on their hands, wipe the spit in somebody's eye who was blind, and the blind person all of a sudden will be able to see?

If the answer is no, then you withhold your faith

The answer is yes if you accept the axioms needed to support the belief. You are making a judgment on which beliefs are good and which beliefs are bad.

If you don't think the idea "God exists" based on faith, is not an axiom, then there's not much left for us to talk about. Your dogma of evidence-based belief prevents from accepting any other kind of premise. Use the word premise instead of axiom if you are stuck on the use of the work axiom. Your axioms, your premises, prevent you from seeing the world differently. Everyone think's their own dogma is absolute truth and anyone who thinks differently is insane. Having dogma is what it means to be human.

I have my dogma. You have yours.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

The answer is yes if you accept the axioms needed to support the belief. You are making a judgment on which beliefs are good and which beliefs are bad.

If you don't think the idea "God exists" based on faith, is not an axiom, then there's not much left for us to talk about. Your dogma of evidence-based belief prevents from accepting any other kind of premise. Use the word premise instead of axiom if you are stuck on the use of the work axiom. Your axioms, your premises, prevent you from seeing the world differently. Everyone think's their own dogma is absolute truth and anyone who thinks differently is insane. Having dogma is what it means to be human.

I have my dogma. You have yours.

I am a deist. God is evident in nature and through reason alone. It requires no faith to know god exists.

The ONLY faith required or desired of you is the faith that religious con-men ask you to give to them to believe in THEIR silly rendition of this god we can ALL see evident in nature.

The god of Abraham is one of many man made renditions of a more universal god evident in nature.

All I can say is thank god the god of Abraham is only a figment of people's imaginations.

 

[dfnj]

All I can say is thank god the god of Abraham is only a figment of people's imaginations.

Yes, I agree in the sense that everything we say and think about reality is delusion. Our words are NOT the reality they represent.

The god of Abraham does only exist in our imaginations. For the people who believe in the version of the Old Testament God, that God, is real to them. Their version of God is no more
real or fake than your pantheistic type God you assert is real based on evidence and reason.

As I said, each of us thinks our own dogma is the only right one. I don't think your way of thinking is right or wrong but just not the only one valid way of thinking. Do you honestly think you are absolutely correct in your way of thinking? What is your best evidence supporting your theistic beliefs?

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

Yes, I agree in the sense that everything we say and think about reality is delusion. Our words are NOT the reality they represent.

The god of Abraham does only exist in our imaginations. For the people who believe in the version of the Old Testament God, that God, is real to them. Their version of God is no more
real or fake than your pantheistic type God you assert is real based on evidence and reason.

As I said, each of use thinks our own dogma is the only right one. I don't think your way of thinking is right or wrong but just not the only one valid way of thinking. Do you honestly think you are absolutely correct in your way of thinking? What is your best evidence supporting your theistic beliefs?

I just told you that I'm a deist in my previous post, and in your response you call me a pantheist? No, I'm a deist.

Pantheism is the view that the world is either identical to God, or an expression of God's nature. According to pantheism, “God is everything and everything is God.” ... Pantheism rejects the idea that God is transcendent. The pantheist God is NOT a personal God, the kind of entity that could have beliefs, desires, intentions, or agency.

Deism is just the belief in god as the creator of the universe, nothing more. This god doesn't reveal himself to man via revelations. This god doesn't intervene in the universe or perform miracles, etc...

I don't have theistic beliefs. Theism is the belief in god as the creator and ruler of the universe, belief that god listens to our prayers, belief that god chooses a chosen people, belief that god impregnates teenage Jewish virgins, etc...

I am a deist.

God gave us reason, NOT religion.

I'm with Ambassador Franklin...

"I cannot conceive otherwise than that He, the Infinite Father, expects or requires NO worship or praise from us, but that He is even infinitely above it."

Benjamin Franklin from "Articles of Belief and Acts of Religion", Nov. 20, 1728]

 

[Apologes]

Logic and the rest of critical thinking present information that is eternally true.

Critical thinking is an objective analysis of certain issues. It doesn't "present information", it is a method of evaluating the truth or falsehood of a certain piece of information (if you insist on using this terminology).

Assuming an afterlife, then learning such information is far more important than learning information that just goes irrelevant or obsolete.

Why do you think that?

Yet most theists, who supposedly believe in an afterlife, are less competent at critical thinking than most atheists, who don't believe in an afterlife. Yes, that's a dogmatic statement, but anyone who uses social media can see that it's clearly true. The few theists who learn critical thinking are the smart ones, who can match or beat the smartest atheists. But smart people are the minority. Among people of average IQ who engage in philosophical discussion, the atheists are more rational.

You talk about critical thinking and then you base your generalizations on your limited personal experience of observing unspecified people on social media.

I assert that the reason for this reversal is scripture, which tells people to believe what they are told, rather than figure things out for themselves.

That's neither universal nor accurate considering how both the "smart theists" (your words) and the "majority" read and believe in the same scriptures.

 

[dfnj]

Deism is just the belief in god as the creator of the universe, nothing more.

What evidence do you have a creator god even exists? Our Big Bang could be the result of a star collapsing to a black hole in a previously existing space-time dimension.

We have no evidence nothingness ever existed or can ever exist. Since somethingness does exist, the only rationale and logical conclusion one can make is something has always existed. It is an anthropomorphic projection on the Universe to think otherwise. The Universe is not a life-form.

 

[Drizzt Do'Urden]

What evidence do you have a creator god even exists? Our Big Bang could be the result of a star collapsing to a black hole in a previously existing space-time dimension.

We have no evidence nothingness ever existed or can ever exist. Since somethingness does exist, the only rationale and logical conclusion one can make is something has always existed. It is an anthropomorphic projection on the Universe to think otherwise. The Universe is not a life-form.

I don't say the universe is a lifeform...

I think we can reasonably assume a creator. After all, everything we've studied in great detail has been shown to have a cause.

1. The diversity of life we see around us today couldn't have evolved without life first coming to exist.
2. Life can't exist if there are, number 1, no elements to build it with, and number two, a place for it to find a suitable place to perch (ie a planet or moon).
3. Planets and moons can't exist without the elements to make them up, and without stars dying and spreading their elemental guts across the universe when they explode.
4. The overwhelming majority of elements can't exist without stars to manufacture them in their cores via nuclear fusion.
5. Stars can't exist if the first element, hydrogen, isn't created soon after the big bang.
6. The first element can't exist without the big bang
7. The big bang can't happen without natural laws that define and manage the universe going forward.
8. The natural laws that made all of the above possible don't just exist without a cause...

If our universe that we see today is just the result of a previous universe's death, that still doesn't explain the natural laws and processes that allow all of that to happen.

The natural laws and processes that define and manage this universe had to come from something.

We call that something, we give that something the placeholder name, god.

 

[Axe Elf]

The writings of Confucious is not religious.

Well, opinions vary (and by the way, you used the wrong verb). Confucianism is commonly considered a religion, but in any case, it was YOUR OWN example:

Confucious was one man and he left something superbly better.

If you're going to say that some other writings are "superbly better" than the writings in the Bible, which are clearly religious in nature, then I assume you would be comparing other religious writings to them. Comparing a science book to the Bible, for instance, would be apples and oranges. But if you are asking to withdraw your example of Confucianism on the basis that it is not religious, I will allow it.

You, a Christian saying that a Muslim who wilfully ignores jesus and his sacrifice will find God?

God says that if you seek Him, you will find Him. I have no reason not to take Him at His word. Whether people understand that the sacrifice of Jesus allows them to enter into the presence of God or not, the sacrifice still operates implicitly for all who were created for salvation, regardless of religion.

"And I have other sheep [beside these] that are not of this fold. I must bring and impel those also; and they will listen to My voice and heed My call, and so there will be [they will become] one flock under one Shepherd." --Jesus (John 10:16, Amplified Bible)

I read what you have to say about slavery. You sound like a worldly lawyer that will justify anything, even justify all the unjust rules in the Bible to be right with God.

Your problem here is twofold. First, you (a mere mortal) have already decided that the rules that the creator of the universe has provided in the Bible are unjust, so you are not interested in hearing their justification. Anyone who tries to explain it to you must be fundamentally flawed, therefore, you don't have to listen.

Secondly, you're laboring under the same misconception as this @Drizzt Do'Urden, that the slavery regulated in the Bible is the same as the slavery we think of after watching "Roots." This leads you to the untenable position that Jesus, who is almost universally recognized as one of the most peaceful, loving persons in the history of forever, was secretly a rabid maniac who believed that slaves should be beaten every day and twice on Sunday for good measure. It would be like suggesting that Ghandi was secretly a member of the Hell's Angels.

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion, but if you've already decided that there can be no justification for the horrors Christianity brings, then I'm not going to waste a good education on a disinterested student. At least I can tell that you are arguing your own opinions in your own words here, and not just Googling something that you think supports your position, like the aforementioned member seems inclined to do, so props for that.

If there were a god he will not take one as yourself to spend eternity with him.

Oh, I'm crushed. Thankfully, you're not on the admissions board.

Don't worry, there is no hell.

I know; at least not in the way most people think about it.

Lose yourself in your fairy stories.

It's better than being lost without them.

The Bible only sells better than the Quran because there are many more Christians and Christian institutions.

So clearly the writings of the Bible have a wider appeal than those of the Quran, if it has produced so many more Christians than the Quran has produced Muslims. If there were more Muslims than Christians, then one would have to consider that the Quran was more effectively written. Neither is WRONG, per se, but obviously the more popular book has the broader appeal.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Logic and the rest of critical thinking present information that is eternally true. Assuming an afterlife, then learning such information is far more important than learning information that just goes irrelevant or obsolete. Yet most theists, who supposedly believe in an afterlife, are less competent at critical thinking than most atheists, who don't believe in an afterlife. Yes, that's a dogmatic statement, but anyone who uses social media can see that it's clearly true. The few theists who learn critical thinking are the smart ones, who can match or beat the smartest atheists. But smart people are the minority. Among people of average IQ who engage in philosophical discussion, the atheists are more rational.

I assert that the reason for this reversal is scripture, which tells people to believe what they are told, rather than figure things out for themselves.

I confess that's what I used to believe when I was an atheist too. But the wise man knows himself to be a fool! It's always easier to critique other people's beliefs rather than your own.
This is especially true where a belief is claimed as 'intellectually superior'. You can't change your mind no matter the evidence, or you become all the disparaging names you called other people.

e.g. Hoyle who dismissed the Big Bang as 'religious pseudoscience' and was hence forced to reject it till his dying day

We all believe in something Cary, blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself as such.

 

[Axe Elf]

That's one HUGE "if" to some people. Myself included. I don't believe it. Not by a long shot. And all those quotes you patently accept as "true" are completely dependent on The Bible also being true. That's circular - using the source material for the quote as the evidence to its truth. Sure The Bible contains some nuggets of wisdom... but it also contain some nuggets of sheep manure. Crass of me? Yes. Honest of me? Absolutely.

Once you have established the validity of the Bible by the evidence of reason, then it is not circular to use scripture to establish truth. I can prove the validity of the Bible to you, if you are willing to accept the axioms that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God exists--but of course I cannot prove those axioms to you, so if you do not accept them as being true, I cannot establish the validity of the Bible. But that's all kind of peripheral to the substance of this thread.

If you don't believe in the validity of the Bible, that's fine--but you were the one quoting scriptures to me--I just explained them for you. In any case, the topic of this thread concerns scripture (and the role it plays or does not play in promoting critical thinking), so if you're going to participate in the discussion, and you won't accept a demonstration of the Bible's validity, then you have to assume the validity of scripture to address claims about scripture. If you don't want to assume that, then you can recuse yourself from the discussion, but you can't hijack a discussion about scripture and then say that scripture is inadmissable.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Once you have established the validity of the Bible by the evidence of reason, then it is not circular to use scripture to establish truth. I can prove the validity of the Bible to you, if you are willing to accept the axioms that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent God exists--but of course I cannot prove those axioms to you, so if you do not accept them as being true, I cannot establish the validity of the Bible. But that's all kind of peripheral to the substance of this thread.

If you don't believe in the validity of the Bible, that's fine--but you were the one quoting scriptures to me--I just explained them for you. In any case, the topic of this thread concerns scripture (and the role it plays or does not play in promoting critical thinking), so if you're going to participate in the discussion, and you won't accept a demonstration of the Bible's validity, then you have to assume the validity of scripture to address claims about scripture. If you don't want to assume that, then you can recuse yourself from the discussion, but you can't hijack a discussion about scripture and then say that scripture is inadmissable.

You're right that I'm off topic. So I am done on that course.

However, getting back on topic, do you find it at all stifling to the theistic "critical thinking" process to completely discount the views of anyone who doesn't accept your doctrine as absolutely true in all respects (note the portion I colored red in your quote above)? Is there intrinsic value in keeping knowledge of your faith self-contained, and to avoid having to attempt to answer to any other critiques of your belief set, besides those of your most ardently believing brethren?

I can tell you myself that I would be very very far behind the curve on the "spiritual path" I have chosen, if it weren't for my having to "think critically" on the dissenting viewpoints that adherents of the various religions hold. Their relating their beliefs to me, and my consuming them for assimilation or rejection, literally propelled me on my way to finding what it is that I believe rings true amongst all the possible beliefs out there. Perhaps this is one of the things that might contribute to the appearance to some that atheists think more critically than theists. Things like attempts to shut down uncomfortable lines of questioning.