Critical thinking, Why? Because apparently I am rubbish at it.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I think that depends entirely on what you are judging, what conclusions you reach, and what criteria you use to reach those conclusions.

Yes there will be disagreement between people as each individual’s nature/ nurture will lead inevitably to differing conclusions. Managing disagreement is part of the challenge in societies since they are a vehicle for social cooperation.

But presumably if you think it’s ok for you to make moral judgments then you can’t deny other people the same right?

[Aruntraveller]

But presumably if you think it’s ok for you to make moral judgments then you can’t deny other people the same right?

Of course I make moral judgements all the time.

Only yesterday I was wondering where I could locate a shotgun to deal with the mother sat in our local pub at noon on her third glass of wine whilst in charge of her 2 children both of whom were under 5.

I don't however base my judgements on a book that has on occasions been used to justify all sorts of dubious punishments.

Which brings me to Gonnagle's point about being only human. If the suggestion is that religions go wrong, or at least aren't "true to God" because humans are involved and are flawed, does the same apply to the holy books that have been written?

If that is the case, how flawed are the holy books? 10% 30% 50%? Which interpretation is the true one? How do you know? Is Gonnagle basing his interpretation on his inbuilt sense of kindness/prejudice, etc?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Arun,

The book is not flawed, the person reading the book is flawed, simples

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

Dear Arun,

The book is not flawed, the person reading the book is flawed, simples

Gonnagle.

Oh, so genocide and slavery are just fine. Good to know.

[Maeght]

If I have understood correctly what you mean by “knock the bridge down”, then from observation of the world around me, that seems to be how intelligent organisms learn - through exploration, taking risks, failure, adaptation.

Why would it need to be a different process for higher intelligence organisms such as humans? In relation to morals about reciprocity, compassion, empathy, social cooperation and order - knocking the bridge down is how humans learn  - by experiencing directly or indirectly failure, pain, suffering.

That was Walt's term I was going along with.

The discussion started with Walt distinguishing between '"Knowing something" and "causing something". My thinking is that if it is an Omni God we are talking about then I'm not sure that there is a difference.

[Gonnagle]

Oh, so genocide and slavery are just fine. Good to know.

Says the fundamental atheist, oh and sorry the top kiddy on this forum for critical thinking, aye right

Gonnagle.

[Maeght]

Says the fundamental atheist, oh and sorry the top kiddy on this forum for critical thinking, aye right

Gonnagle.

Ad hominem?

[Gonnagle]

Ad hominem?

Dear Maeght,

 "Gesundheit"

Gonnagle.

[Aruntraveller]

Says the fundamental atheist, oh and sorry the top kiddy on this forum for critical thinking, aye right

Gonnagle.

I wish you'd practice what you preach:

Intellectual empathy is the ability to understand and appreciate perspectives different from one's own, even if those perspectives challenge one's own beliefs or values. It involves stepping outside of one's own frame of reference to understand the reasoning and motivations behind another person's way of thinking. This skill is crucial for productive dialogue and can help identify hidden common ground.

[Stranger]

Says the fundamental [meaningless gibberish], oh and sorry the top kiddy on this forum for critical thinking, aye right

Remember, if we have no idea what you mean by 'God', then we have no idea what you mean by 'atheist', let alone 'fundamental' atheist. Is that like a fundamental particle? Can't be broken down into other components, or something?

Also, you didn't address the point about the bible...

[Gonnagle]

I wish you'd practice what you preach:

Dear Arun,

I stand admonished.

But regarding intellectual empathy, you or rather the Atheist fraternity do not give me much to work on, "there ain't no God" limits me in practicing my empathy.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Remember, if we have no idea what you mean by 'God', then we have no idea what you mean by 'atheist', let alone 'fundamental' atheist. Is that like a fundamental particle? Can't be broken down into other components, or something?

Also, you didn't address the point about the bible...

Dear Stranger,

Sorry but I would like you to address your point, using your critical thinking facilities.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

But regarding intellectual empathy, you or rather the [meaningless gibberish] fraternity do not give me much to work on, "there ain't no [meaningless gibberish]" limits me in practicing my empathy.

No wonder you're confused. Since you don't know, or won't say, what 'God' is, somebody denying it is not going to mean much. Not that most atheists do deny it like that. Generally people here are agnostic atheists, so they wouldn't say "there ain't no God" at all, they'd say something like "you have failed to convince me of your claim that there is a God", or, in your case, "what the fuck do you mean by 'God'?"

[Stranger]

Sorry but I would like you to address your point, using your critical thinking facilities.

Which point? And what are you on about, you want me to address my own point?

[Gordon]

Dear Arun,

The book is not flawed, the person reading the book is flawed, simples

Gonnagle.

Gonners

If the book contains mistakes or lies, and there is no way to exclude these risks, then that it may be flawed is a reasonable conclusion (especially bearing in mind some of the claims it makes).

How it is read makes no difference to whether or not it is accurate - if it is read as metaphor, such as poetry can be, then I don't suppose it matters. However, when people say along the lines of "Jesus said.....whatever", as if it were certain knowledge, then I'd say they were over-reaching.

[Gonnagle]

Which point? And what are you on about, you want me to address my own point?

Dear Stranger,

Yes, using your critical thinking, thank you.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Gonners

If the book contains mistakes or lies, and there is no way to exclude these risks, then that it may be flawed is a reasonable conclusion (especially bearing in mind some of the claims it makes).

How it is read makes no difference to whether or not it is accurate - if it is read as metaphor, such as poetry can be, then I don't suppose it matters. However, when people say along the lines of "Jesus said.....whatever", as if it were certain knowledge, then I'd say they were over-reaching.

Dear Gordon,

And yes once again says the fundamental Atheist, and quite honestly a serious question to you, do you actually think there is any Critical thinking happening on this forum?

Gonnagle.

PS: Please read the very first post on this thread before answering, thank you.

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

And yes once again says the fundamental Atheist, and quite honestly a serious question to you, do you actually think there is any Critical thinking happening on this forum?

Gonnagle.

PS: Please read the very first post on this thread before answering, thank you.

I'd say so, and pretty much since this place got going too.

That so many logical fallacies have been highlighted is just one example of critical thinking in action.

[Gonnagle]

I'd say so, and pretty much since this place got going too.

That so many logical fallacies have been highlighted is just one example of critical thinking in action.

Dear Gordon,

O'Riley My shoe size is a 8 and a half but sometimes I can be a nine.

Gonnagle.

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

O'Riley My shoe size is a 8 and a half but sometimes I can be a nine.

Gonnagle.

In all honesty, I don't know what you are trying to say here.

[Gonnagle]

In all honesty, I don't know what you are trying to say here.

Dear Gordon,

Well let me help you out, I asked,

do you actually think there is any Critical thinking happening on this forum?

You replied,

I'd say so, and pretty much since this place got going too.

A fundamental point of critical thinking is to walk in another mans shoes, comprende, compadre

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

Dear Stranger,

Sorry but I would like you to address your point, using your critical thinking facilities.

Gonnagle.

Again: which point? And I'm still not sure what you expect. For example, if you mean the bible and genocide and slavery, I can give you evidence in the form of references, but it wasn't a deduction, just reading the text to see what it says. What would require some serious argument skills is making a case that it doesn't really mean what it says...

[Gordon]

Dear Gordon,

Well let me help you out, I asked,

do you actually think there is any Critical thinking happening on this forum?

You replied,

I'd say so, and pretty much since this place got going too.

A fundamental point of critical thinking is to walk in another mans shoes, comprende, compadre

Gonnagle.

Not really: if you conclude that the other man isn't wearing any shoes, then there is nothing worthwhile to walk in, and it is reasonable to point this out.

I'd say that critical thinking allows you dismiss what others say if you can reasonably conclude that what they say is fallacious and/or incoherent.

[Gonnagle]

Not really: if you conclude that the other man isn't wearing any shoes, then there is nothing worthwhile to walk in, and it is reasonable to point this out.

I'd say that critical thinking allows you dismiss what others say if you can reasonably conclude that what they say is fallacious and/or incoherent.

Dear Gordon,

Nice, my Faith is empty, this is the result of your critical thinking, another fundamental point of critical thinking is confirmation bias, how is your confirmation bias Gordon, and please remember you are human, I have met you, I can vouch for that very fact.

Gonnagle.

[Enki]

Dear Gordon,

O'Riley My shoe size is a 8 and a half but sometimes I can be a nine.

Gonnagle.

Dear Gonners,

Just a few comments:

There is much more than walking in another person's shoes involved in critical thinking!

You seem to have a knack of coming over to some people on this forum (including me) as either confusing or confused. I haven't a clue what you mean by God, for instance, because you seem to be relying solely on certain human attributes rather than any distinct entity.

And when you are faced with challenging examples of how the bible is flawed, instead of giving a reasoned response, it seems you are unable or unwilling to do so, relying on what looks like sarcasm instead..

Incidentally, don't you think it's time that you took note of Stranger's post when he suggests that most atheists on this forum don't support the  statement 'there ain't no God", even though it was your implicit assumption.