bah, now I'm suspended too

[_marg]

Marg,

I can show you where you have logical fallacies about what critical thinking is. You assume that apologists did not arrive at their set conclusion by critical thinking. And it is here that your logic fails you. Apologists can be critical thinkers and still arrive at the same conclusions that they have about god and the lds church. Likewise for catholic apologists. To assume that apologists are not critical thinkers, is a illogical leap in the wrong direction.

What daniel wrote is his own rationale for belief in god. He could have arrived at that conclusion through reflection and questioning and by also having a dialogue of engagement with the texts that he came across. And he reached a conclusion. You Marg have also reached conclusions. What makes your thinking more critical than an apologist? The act is not in the conclusion but in how that conclusion was drawn.

I talked about concepts Why me which you have totally ignored. You fail to quote me and address my words. I explained point by point why defending faith based positions is NOT critical thinking.

As far as me and my critical thinking ..what am I defending? I have expressed that I am an atheist...that is a person who lacks a god belief. Why do I hold that position? Because of absence of evidence for a god and yet there is evidence for an evolution of differing man created god beliefs throughout history. So I don't leap to a conclusion absent evidence.

An example: as you know I give uncle dale a hard time with his evidence by stressing the sources that he gives and the hypotheticals. His evidence at this moment is not convincing after some reflection and questioning on my part of his knowledge.
Likewise for dan vogel. However, you arrived at a different conclusion.

You are going off on a tangent. You asked what is critical thinking and do apologists critically think. I'd have to examine your reasoning before I can conclude you effectively critically thought it through with regards to Dale's or Dan's position. But we know an apologist is defending faith based conclusion. Faith by it's very nature is not reliant on evidence. It is truth by assertion absent evidence. Anyone can do that..it requires absolutely no critical thinking.

And yet, perhaps all three of us used critical thinking to reach our different conclusions. Can we say who was the more critical thinker? No. Critical thinking is a process and not a conclusion. Critical thinking is an action, and not passive. That is the key to critical thinking. Conclusions are meant to be discussed and dialogued with through the creation of each participant and her or his viewpoint as the subject of the discussion.

Critical thinking of individuals can be assessed. There are recognizable indicators of good thinkers versus bad. Obviously Why me, people differ in their knowledge level, intelligence, memory abilities, communication skills, experiences, in their ability to evaluate evidence, in their inate abilities to problem solve, and some have better training than others in decision making/problem solving skills. Mankind are not all equal in their critical thinking abilities. In Sethbag's posts talking about himself I recognized traits which led me to conclude he was a good critical thinker. He uses evidence, he questions, he lets the evidence lead him rather than defend a position despite evidence and he's willing to change his belief upon appreciating the evidence warrants it. From memory those were some of the reasons I considered him a good thinker. All I've seen from you Why me, is personal attacks and irrational thinking to support your beliefs.

[_why me]

I talked about concepts Why me which you have totally ignored. You fail to quote me and address my words. I explained point by point why defending faith based positions is NOT critical thinking.

As far as me and my critical thinking ..what am I defending? I have expressed that I am an atheist...that is a person who lacks a god belief. Why do I hold that position? Because of absence of evidence for a god and yet there is evidence for an evolution of differing man created god beliefs throughout history. So I don't leap to a conclusion absent evidence.


Critical thinking of individuals can be assessed. There are recognizable indicators of good thinkers versus bad. Obviously Why me, people differ in their knowledge level, intelligence, memory abilities, communication skills, experiences, in their ability to evaluate evidence, in their inate abilities to problem solve, and some have better training than others in decision making/problem solving skills. Mankind are not all equal in their critical thinking abilities. In Sethbag's posts talking about himself I recognized traits which led me to conclude he was a good critical thinker. He uses evidence, he questions, he lets the evidence lead him rather than defend a position despite evidence and he's willing to change his belief upon appreciating the evidence warrants it. From memory those were some of the reasons I considered him a good thinker. All I've seen from you Why me, is personal attacks and irrational thinking to support your beliefs.

But a critical thinking believer can see evidence all around him or her that there is a god. And both you and the believer see the evidence from different understandings and reach different conclusions. But both can still be critical thinkers because critical thinking is a process and not a conclusion.

I see nature and see god. You see nature and see Darwin. Who is right? And so, what is evidence? Seth sees evidence, uncle dale sees evidence, dan vogel sees evidence and you see evidence. Who is right with the evidence? And who is the critical thinker even though different conclusions are drawn.

Marg, you like people who support your understandings and beliefs. And that is fine. But you are not a critical thinker as long as you use such vocabulary as 'irrational' etc.

A believer questions human life and sees god in that human life. You the atheist question human life and sees a monkey in that human life.

And by calling me an irrational thinker you are not a critical thinker. In a critical thinking dialogue such vocabulary is not used. Again it is the process and not the conclusion.

[_marg]

But a critical thinking believer can see evidence all around him or her that there is a god. And both you and the believer see the evidence from different understandings and reach different conclusions. But both can still be critical thinkers because critical thinking is a process and not a conclusion.

The evidence must be transparent. Otherwise Why me..truths would be a function of whatever one claims to be true is true because they say so. As I hope you can imagine that wouldn't be an effective way of evaluating truths.

I see nature and see god. You see nature and see Darwin. Who is right? And so, what is evidence?

Evidence is transparent. And from evidence ...reasoning is applied to reach conclusions.

Seth sees evidence, uncle dale sees evidence, dan vogel sees evidence and you see evidence. Who is right with the evidence? And who is the critical thinker even though different conclusions are drawn.

Well the person who is right is the one who presents the evidence and argument/theory open to objective evaluation and through concensus it is the accepted best fit. A biased audience will pick what they want to support their position. And audience who are good critical thinkers will objectively assess the evidence and theory and consensus should be reached as to best theory. That theory then is tentative and should new evidence or reasong come available a reevaluation might be in order. The difficulties with the theories for example on who wrote the Book of Mormon is that the evidence is enormous, much of it is missing and so it is difficult to reach a best fit theory. No one theory yet, has consensus agreement by those who are objective as to which one is best fit.

Marg, you like people who support your understandings and beliefs. And that is fine. But you are not a critical thinker as long as you use such vocabulary as 'irrational' etc.

You can view me any way you wish but I will use the word "irrational" because it has a particular meaning and is useful in communicating a concept. If it wasn't useful the word wouldn't exist.

A believer questions human life and sees god in that human life. You the atheist question human life and sees a monkey in that human life.

Your 2nd sentence reveals your lack of understanding of life on earth. Why should an atheist see a monkey when they see human life? A very simplistic notion.

And by calling me an irrational thinker you are not a critical thinker. In a critical thinking dialogue such vocabulary is not used. Again it is the process and not the conclusion.

Beliefs in things existing absent evidence is irrational.

[_Fortigurn]

But a critical thinking believer can see evidence all around him or her that there is a god.

A critical thinker can see evidence all around him or here that they recognise can be interpreted as evidence that there is a god.

[_marg]

But a critical thinking believer can see evidence all around him or her that there is a god.

A critical thinker can see evidence all around him or here that they recognise can be interpreted as evidence that there is a god.

Evidence needs to be transparent not just to those who chose or want to believe. Otherwsie there is no way to assess claims..and it boils down to relativity..that truths are simply a function of whatever one claims to be truths.

I could say I see evidence of a devil, so a devil exists and not a benevolent god. My claim would have to be accepted as equal in truth to yours in a system in which truths are simply a function of making a claim without any means to evaluate it objectively.

It takes no critical thinking to make claims absent evidence. Unless you offer transparent evidence I have no reason to accept your claims.

[_Fortigurn]

But a critical thinking believer can see evidence all around him or her that there is a god.

A critical thinker can see evidence all around him or here that they recognise can be interpreted as evidence that there is a god.

Evidence needs to be transparent not just to those who chose or want to believe. Otherwsie there is no way to assess claims..and it boils down to relativity..that truths are simply a function of whatever one claims to be truths.

I could say I see evidence of a devil, so a devil exists and not a benevolent god. My claim would have to be accepted as equal in truth to yours in a system in which truths are simply a function of making a claim without any means to evaluate it objectively.

It takes no critical thinking to make claims absent evidence. Unless you offer transparent evidence I have no reason to accept your claims.

I certainly agree. I face these issues all the time as a Christian apologist. Writing presuppositional apologetic is easy. Writing for the non-believer is another matter entirely.