I am no longer a *blank* because *blank*

[Aupmanyav]

First, there is no actual 'proof' of the existence of God, its a matter of faith. Truth continues to unfold.

My question is whether the compromise is acceptable to you or not? You were talking about compromises.

 

[pearl]

My question is whether the compromise is acceptable to you or not? You were talking about compromises.

By compromise are you referring to a consensus? If so, the most probable solution, for the present. Nothing ever written in stone.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Your point makes sense.

Thanks. It's rare to connect in these threads. You made a claim about an atheist worldview, somebody showed you that atheism shouldn't be called a worldview because you don't know his worldview if all he tells you is that it contains no gods, and you agreed. That's encouraging to see, and it tells me that you are a critical thinker - somebody willing and able to evaluate an argument for soundness, and to be convinced by a compelling argument.

Maybe the difference concerns what is meant by evidence, in this case there is no 'tangible' evidence. It's hypothetical.

You and I will never make progress in this discussion because we are not doing what was just described, which can be called dialectic. It requires two (or more) people that share a common method of deciding what is true about the world attempting to resolve differences in beliefs generated by this process. To do this, they cooperatively debate, that is they attempt to rebut one another. Rebuttal is a specific kind of disagreement. It is a counterargument to somebody else's claim that contradicts it, that is, makes the argument wrong if the counterargument is sound. This is what the people in dialectic are looking for - the statement that helps decide which of these two mutually exclusive conclusions is sound. This alludes to where we began - that if two critical thinkers come to contradictory conclusions based on the same evidence, one (or both) has made an error, and because they share a method for resolving that disagreement, they can do that.

But they need to engage one another, which I haven't been successful in doing with you. If you can't or won't tell me why you think my comment was incorrect, I have no reason to agree with you that it is.

With all due respect, I wrote, "If you disagree with my comment, please tell me specifically what and why it can't be correct in your opinion. Or perhaps you thought that my comment was correct and are just adding to it." You didn't say that you disagreed or agreed as asked, nor did you refer to any part of it as requested. So, we're at an impasse. No further progress can be made beyond my argument if you don't rebut it. The conclusion was, "If two people come to mutually exclusive conclusions, at least one isn't as critical a thinker as he or she claims to be." And this was made in response to your comment that critical thought led you to Christianity, whereas it led me away from it. Since we have access to the same evidence but came to mutually exclusive conclusions - you that Christianity was correct and me that it wasn't - one of us wasn't interpreting that evidence according to the rules of critical analysis.

My comment was also a criticism of using the phrase critical thinking to any kind of thinking. I just went through this on another thread with a believer who told us that he or she accepted that certain scriptures were from God using critical thinking while arguing with a host of critical thinkers who disagreed with that conclusion evaluating the same evidence. They can't both be correct. That should be important to everybody involved, but it doesn't seem to matter to the believers. Evidence that they have reasoned fallaciously seems to not matter, which belies the claims of being a critical thinker. One does that in order to be correct, that is, not accept false ideas as correct.

A critical thinker is interested whenever another critical thinker disagrees, but not when somebody who doesn't know or apply those principle disagrees, even if they call themselves a critical thinker. The evidence that they think critically is their interest in being correct in their beliefs and their interest in resolving differences using dialectic as Israel and I just did. He made a claim and I offered a rebuttal. He evaluated my argument, which if correct, made his claim incorrect. He found the argument compelling and changed his belief set. Done.

That's dialectic, and that's its power. But it is a cooperative effort. You and I might have done the same with our mutually exclusive conclusions, but only if you were also willing. I say that the evidence available does not support a belief in Christianity. You implied that you thought it did. As I said a few posts ago, at least one of us must be incorrect. For me, it's you. Critical thought takes one to agnostic atheism every time. If you don't care to rebut that - explain why that is not correct - then I must conclude that it is because you can't. When Israel got to a conclusion that he couldn't rebut, he said so and agreed that the rebuttal argument was sound. That isn't going to happen with us, because we're not on the same page about how such matters are decided, or even that they need to be.

I hope that you take no offense at this. You're a nice person, and the discussion has been pleasant. I just happen to disagree with you, and offer this criticism constructively. You have your opinions, mine are opposite, you claimed to be a critical thinker, and I wanted to see if you wanted to engage in dialectic to resolve those differences if possible. You didn't, and that's fine, but it means that the debate part of this has ended. It ended with the last plausible, unrebutted argument.

 

[Aupmanyav]

By compromise are you referring to a consensus? If so, the most probable solution, for the present. Nothing ever written in stone.

No. It was written on stone, but the stone was broken soon after it was inscribed. Now what we have is only what is written on paper (in what people say - 4th Century, CE - Athanasius, Pope Damasus I; and finalized only by Tridentine Council of 1545 and 1563).
New Testament - Wikipedia

 

[Samael_Khan]

Thanks. It's rare to connect in these threads. You made a claim about an atheist worldview, somebody showed you that atheism shouldn't be called a worldview because you don't know his worldview if all he tells you is that it contains no gods, and you agreed. That's encouraging to see, and it tells me that you are a critical thinker - somebody willing and able to evaluate an argument for soundness, and to be convinced by a compelling argument.

Awesome, glad to see that you have been encouraged.

Ironically, I have been disillusioned of the ideas that I think critically, that I think rationally, and that I am free from bias. Knowing myself in that way, I am very aware of my own blind spots, so I will happily piggyback off of your critical thinking skills.

 

[pearl]

This is what the people in dialectic are looking for - the statement that helps decide which of these two mutually exclusive conclusions is sound.

You're saying 'sound' I am saying 'most probable'. You have set your argument for critical thinking as it applies to faith, religion. There is no definitive conclusion. Example: the four- source theory in the Pentateuch, accepted by many, is now in question once again, the two-source theory of the gospels, now generally accepted. You wrote "I am no longer a Christian because I was not taught to critically think on the matter and decide for myself." I offered it is biblical criticism that has enriched my faith.
One must acknowledge the theology, the christology, of those who penned Christian Scripture and their intent within the narrative.

 

[DNB]

Neither.
Its just that its all a fantasy.

Same as the personality or behaviour
of my kitchen God.
I just don't take it seriously.
That's where the foolishness comes in.

But you liked it for all the wrong reasons.