happyjack27 wrote:
i didn't even look at what he was saying. the statements i made are valid regardless. you're saying he's saying theists are generally less intelligent? i do recall that social statistics do indeed show that to be the case.
No. That'a not what he said and that's not what I said he said. How can you continue to post about posts you don't know what they said?
Is there a better example of "unreasoning hostility to religion" than people who float ridiculous deluded caricatures of religious people that are obviously on their face, quite absurd?
how? by not making definite statements, of course.
if you put what you disagree with in your own words i'd be happy to opine.
as to whether there are better examples - i'm not sure how/if that applies here, but i'm sure there _are_ better examples. still, that says nothing on the matter of whether hostility is greater on one side or the other.
The statement I disagreed with was that religious people don't evaluate, nor reevaluate their beliefs but rather, simply adopt them blindly like some robots, incapable of critical thinking. This is an obviously and stupidly wrong position, formed by a bitter person, and used to rationalize an irrational hostility to religion. I don't care if it came from nuns who spanked his little butt with a ruler--it's still delusional thinking.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Skipjack wrote:Sorry, but the catholic church has not changed a single one of its dogmas in hundreds of years.
I'm not sure that is entirely correct. Much was changed in the First (1860's) and Second (1960's) Vatican Councils.
Though this would hinge on your thoughts on what constitutes 'its dogmas'; naturally if that boiled down simply to the essential story of God-sent-man to show how much he loved us but was nailed up for trying to persuade people to be nice to each other, then it's a worth-while story to reflect on that I'd not really ask or expect the Vatican to give up.
In terms of thinking about how the Catholic faith relates to how people live their lives, then clearly they have teams of folks whose sole purpose is thinking about that stuff*, so I think it'd be wrong to suggest the Catholic church doesn't do any re-evaluation. However, I am not at all convinced that the majority of individuals who subscribe to any particular religion do much re-evaluation of dogma.
*(The Catholic church does ecumenical work rather then evangelical.)
Lets see:
Priests are still not allow to marry.
Contraceptives, especially condoms are still not allowed.
No female priests.
Virgin Mary is still virgin Mary, even though it is historically proven that the catholic church just invented that to make it easier for the celtic pagans (and other pagans in the roman empire) to accept catholizism.
And so on...
Not much rethinking there.
GIThruster wrote:The statement I disagreed with was that religious people don't evaluate, nor reevaluate their beliefs but rather, simply adopt them blindly like some robots, incapable of critical thinking. This is an obviously and stupidly wrong position, formed by a bitter person, and used to rationalize an irrational hostility to religion. I don't care if it came from nuns who spanked his little butt with a ruler--it's still delusional thinking.
i don't see how it's delusional. it's a perfectly demonstrable assertion. and perfectly sensible, too. and it's really not that exceptional of a claim. and again, this is a case where i believe statistics bear it out.
i do recall specifically some tests that tested just this thing, but it was measured agains the persons self-identified political orientation. conservatives showed much lower ability to adapt their beliefs. and of course conservatives are predominately the more religious types. but that's a level removed. i'm sure there are better and once could certainly do better.
EDIT: oh, and not to mention that many religious beliefs, "god" being perhaps the most overt example, require one to suspend, indefinity, may crucial traits for critical reasoning. so that one follows quite directly.
Last edited by happyjack27 on Thu Dec 23, 2010 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Skippy, the texts that talk about the virgin birth are hundreds of years older than the spread of christendom to celtic lands. While it's true it was indeed the Irish, who had a matriarchal culture, who first venerated Mary, the nonsense story you're spreading is just that. . .nonsense. You don't know what you're talking about at all.
Priests not marrying is a good example of thinking in the Catholic church, since they were indeed allowed to marry and did, for the first eight centuries; and they decided the way to end the troubles they had with simony and pluralism was to have priests be celibate.
You don't really understand much more than a 6 year old whiner, now do you? I'm not catholic and don't have many sympathies with the RC church, but I know pretender when I see one, and a bitter whiner when I smell one.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote:
You don't really understand much more than a 6 year old whiner, now do you? I'm not catholic and don't have many sympathies with the RC church, but I know pretender when I see one, and a bitter whiner when I smell one.
GIThruster wrote:The statement I disagreed with was that religious people don't evaluate, nor reevaluate their beliefs but rather, simply adopt them blindly like some robots, incapable of critical thinking. This is an obviously and stupidly wrong position, formed by a bitter person, and used to rationalize an irrational hostility to religion. I don't care if it came from nuns who spanked his little butt with a ruler--it's still delusional thinking.
i don't see how it's delusional. it's a perfectly demonstrable assertion. and perfectly sensible, too. and it's really not that exceptional of a claim. and again, this is a case where i believe statistics bear it out.
i do recall specifically some tests that tested just this thing, but it was measured agains the persons self-identified political orientation. conservatives showed much lower ability to adapt their beliefs. and of course conservatives are predominately the more religious types. but that's a level removed. i'm sure there are better and once could certainly do better.
Lets see the studies. I don't believe any of what you're saying. Certainly it's not true conservatives are more religious. There are a lot more Democrats in church in the US than Republicans.
I think you're just making stuff up. My experience with religious folk is they're all much more self-evaluating on a daily basis than any atheist, but I would not make judgements on my experience alone, nor mention studies no one has seen. Just sounds like atheist propaganda to me. And honestly, because there are so many reasons to not trust such propaganda, I'd not only need to see the study results, I'd need to see the study and how it was worded.
In my experience, atheists are whiners who never reevaluate their beliefs until they find themselves in a fox-hole. Then they're suddenly religious as can be. Also in my experience, the atheists who whine the loudest, are the least secure in their atheism.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
the laws and teachings of most religions are diametrically opposed to critical thinking. to say religion makes ones critical thinking skills simply "weak" is an understatement.
GIThruster wrote:The statement I disagreed with was that religious people don't evaluate, nor reevaluate their beliefs but rather, simply adopt them blindly like some robots, incapable of critical thinking. This is an obviously and stupidly wrong position, formed by a bitter person, and used to rationalize an irrational hostility to religion. I don't care if it came from nuns who spanked his little butt with a ruler--it's still delusional thinking.
i don't see how it's delusional. it's a perfectly demonstrable assertion. and perfectly sensible, too. and it's really not that exceptional of a claim. and again, this is a case where i believe statistics bear it out.
i do recall specifically some tests that tested just this thing, but it was measured agains the persons self-identified political orientation. conservatives showed much lower ability to adapt their beliefs. and of course conservatives are predominately the more religious types. but that's a level removed. i'm sure there are better and once could certainly do better.
Lets see the studies. I don't believe any of what you're saying. Certainly it's not true conservatives are more religious. There are a lot more Democrats in church in the US than Republicans.
I think you're just making stuff up. My experience with religious folk is they're all much more self-evaluating on a daily basis than any atheist, but I would not make judgements on my experience alone, nor mention studies no one has seen. Just sounds like atheist propaganda to me. And honestly, because there are so many reasons to not trust such propaganda, I'd not only need to see the study results, I'd need to see the study and how it was worded.
In my experience, atheists are whiners who never reevaluate their beliefs until they find themselves in a fox-hole. Then they're suddenly religious as can be. Also in my experience, the atheists who whine the loudest, are the least secure in their atheism.
strangely, you seem to be making yourself out to be a perfect example of the mental process whereby new information is actively opposed.
they've been studies doen on this and they show that some individuals actively oppoe new information. and by that i mean they have demonstrably false information in their head, and the more you try to correct it, the firmer they believe it. it's like an aggressive reaction. (obviously this is the opposite of what critical thinking requires)
i don't recall where the studies are. they wre news items when i encountered them. (the for the most part it was not news to me, just that there was actually such studies done.) on the interent somewhere, no doubt. (isnt' everything these days?)
anyways, these are all scientific studies i'm talking about, so you'll be happy to know you'll be able to see all that. might have to pay some journal to get the full paper though, i don't know.
but i really don't feel like doing an internet search. if you really are interested in fidning the truth to the matter, well you're quire capable of doing your own research.
the laws and teachings of most religions are diametrically opposed to critical thinking. to say religion makes ones critical thinking skills simply "weak" is an understatement.
Almost all churches, have statements of faith. In order to be a full member of a church with congregational structure, meaning where they vote; one must sign off on that statement. Now it's probably true, that some people sign off on such statements without really asking themselves what they believe, and it's probably true people will sign off on such things and not be in complete agreement with the statement. It is however impossible to imagine someone signing off on such a thing without asking themselves what they believe. And in fact, it is my experience that the act of merely sitting through a sermon, causes a person to ask themselves what they believe and evaluate their belief. All contemporary exegetical preaching is designed to do precisely this.
Both you and Skippy have in mind this ridiculous caricature of what religious people are like. They're not less thoughtful about the world. They're more thoughtful. You're both proposing something that is on it's face absurd and impossible--that people so concerned with belief, invest no time to actually think about what their beliefs entail. How ridiculous.
And now again asserting you read a study somewhere. . .nonsense.
Anyone who has ever been a part of a community of faith, knows these charges you're leveling about lack of critical thinking in the church are ridiculous. And you see why we have this long thread. All we're seeing is post after post of unreasoning hostility toward religion. Completely unreasoning. The religious folk are quietly wondering for the hundreth time whether subinfideism is correct or if superinfidaism is the way to go, while the atheists shamefully conclude that because religious people aren't loudmouths, they don't think either.
How crazy is that?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
you seem to be a perfect example of what you are arguing against. really, you don't need to take mine or skippys word for any of this and i'd be disappointed if you did.
but assuming bad faith certainly does not help. it's an prime example of non-critical thinking. namely ad hominem logical fallacy.
and then you thrrew out another logical fallacy - black and white fallacy together with a straw man.
like i said, if you are realy interested in knowing the truth, then prove it to yourself by doing your own research. and that also means not hand-waving anythin you disagree with with statements like "oh, they just don't like religion, so they're making it up." look at the evidence. weight it.
if, on the other hand, you aren't generally interested, well then there's nothing anyone can say or do to change your mind, so i dont' see why we should have to humor you. especially when you just throw insults and logical fallacies at us.
Happy, I'm not using any fallacies and I'm not making vacant claims. You are saying that religious people don't think critically, but the fact they are religious suggests on its face they do. You're pretending there must be studies that support your position, but someone else should go find them. We should all take your word there's a study somewhere that says what you're proposing.
And you represent critical thinking? Really?
You sound like a nun. "Just take my word for it. . .really, it's true."
::smack::
Another example of unreasoning hostility to religion.
Last edited by GIThruster on Thu Dec 23, 2010 4:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
if you are intrested i would recommend you first pick up a book on crtical thinking and read throught it all. or better yet, take a course. it is not nearly as automatic and not nearly so prevalent as you seem to think. it is a skill. and one that is quite difficult to master. and one that in most cases, never develops. for instance, most adults do not habituatually engage in formal opreational reasoning. but now i'm troubling you with studies and statistics again. and of course, you will ridicule me for doing so.
so do your own resesrch. and honestly do it. then you will have noone but yourself to ridicule. start with a book on critical thinking. and read up on the logical fallacies. and then maybe on psychology and cognitive development.
