No, I caught it. It's the first logical error you have ever acknowledged making in my memory, and of course you phrased in term of your critical thinking skills. You missed a chance to say explicitly some version of, "You were right, I was wrong."I caught my error in reasoning after I read your entire sentence.
You want me to find your edited post, find your unedited post above my reply to it, look at them side by side word by word, and try to suss out what you changed? How about you do that if you want me to consider your changes.I suggest you read my edited post.
There's software that will compare two documents and identify all of the additions, deletions and changes. I think attorneys use it to confirm that a signed document like a will or contract wasn't changed in any way not known to all involved parties before signing: How to compare two Word documents to see any differences between them
I have at least philosophical doubt about everything including that there is a world outside of my conscious experience, so yes. And I no doubt make mistakes. Please feel free to identify any you might encounter as I do for you.Do you have doubts about your critical thinking abilities?
It was wrong the last time you posted it for reasons given, and it's still wrong now for the same reasons. Also, you don't have good evidence for your religious beliefs. You have about the worst evidence there is.It is logical to have faith in what there is good evidence for, especially when there is no proof.
There is no your reasoning and my reasoning, just valid reasoning.Correction: Your reason tells me not to believe what believe. I am not going to apply your reason since I think it is faulty.
Are you going to say that 'being doubtful and skeptical about the existence of God is both healthy and reasonable' is true because millions of people agree with that statement? If that is what you are claiming it is ad populum.
That millions of atheists agree with you is a fact, but it is also a fact that many, many more millions of believers agree with me. So what does that prove?
You wrote, "Your reason tells me not to believe what believe. I am not going to apply your reason since I think it is faulty." You think that your reasoning is as valid as fallacy-free reasoning. That's what, "That's just your opinion" means, why you say it, and how you hope it is understood.I ever say all opinions are equal?
This mirroring is an odd habit of yours. You're the faith-based thinker, and I'm the critical thinker and empiricist. The moderator in the debate between Ken Ham and Bill Nye on whether creationism is a viable scientific pursuit asked, “What would change your minds?” Scientist Bill Nye answered, “Evidence.” Young Earth Creationist Ken Ham answered, “Nothing. I'm a Christian.” Elsewhere, Ham stated, “By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."Too bad that you have boxed yourself in and can't be reached any more.
You play the part of Ham to my Nye. Ham is locked in. There is no way for him to discover where he is wrong. That's what I meant by boxed in - no way out of that box. Nye just needs to see the evidence.
I doubt that you know what open-mindedness is (hint: look at the Nye and Ham stuff again). You equate rejection of your errors as inflexibility or lack of fair-mindedness, and when have you ever provided anything that warrants a change of opinion. That follows rebuttal. You don't do that. You just dissent and follow it with words that don't rebut. Do you know what that word means? I don't think you do.
Strong critical thinkers demonstrate the following characteristics:
- inquisitiveness with regard to a wide range of issues
- concern to become and remain well-informed
- attentive to opportunities to use critical thinking
- self-confidence in one’s own abilities to reason
- open-mindedness regarding divergent world views
- flexibility in considering alternatives and opinions
- alertness to likely future events in order to anticipate their consequences
- understanding of the opinions of other people
- fair-mindedness in appraising reasoning
- honesty in facing one’s own biases, prejudices, stereotypes, or egocentric tendencies
- prudence in suspending, making or altering judgments
- willingness to reconsider and revise views where honest reflection suggests that change is warranted
And not surprisingly, your list leaves out the chief qualities of critical thought - what it can do and what distinguishes it from "just your opinion."