"You are closed minded" is the argument of the politically correct. None of logic or scientific method has anything to do with being closed minded. It is like accusing a hammer of having an opinion. A hammer is a tool, it is not a political party or religion or opinion.

As Neil Degrees Tyson has said "The good thing about science is that it does not care if you accept it or not".

"Close minded" is sticking with a naked assertion. "Close minded" is living in the past. "Close minded is keeping a position despite facts being contrary to one's position".

(September 13, 2014 at 1:53 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(September 13, 2014 at 1:46 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Coupled with the lack of evidence, which you say should not even exist, and the only conclusion a critical thinker could come to is that there is no justification to believe.

And yet many "critical thinkers" are theists of some sort or the other. Whatever grounds we feel have not been justifiably met, they disagree, or the grounds by which we are expecting justification to arise are in different regions altogether. Or metaphysical naturalism itself cannot meet its own burden of proof and therefore the two alternatives each become one of preference rather than verification.

Please provide evidence that any of them are critical thinkers.

---

(September 13, 2014 at 3:04 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I think this conversation might have a chance of going somewhere if you stopped caricaturing Frodo's position with obvious straw-men, Brian. God as conceived by "critical thinkers" is not as simple as an "invisible pink unicorn" or the "invisible sky hero theory." It's about as silly to say that as it is to characterize the theory of evolution as predicting and failing to produce crocoducks.

Sorry, no. There is precisely as much reason to believe in Poseidon or Thor or pink unicorns. Still waiting to hear about these alleged 'critical thinkers'.

---

(September 13, 2014 at 5:57 pm)psychoslice Wrote:

(September 13, 2014 at 5:49 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Prove I'm right about what?

I am not making any claims that need to be supported. I take the position that the claim (the existence of a god) has not met its burden of proof. Therefore there is no justification to believe it is true.

I do not make the claim, with absolute certainty, that a god does not exist.

A defendant in a court of law does not have to prove they are innocent, only that they are not guilty.

I argue about it because there are real world, very negative consequences for theistic belief. I also happen to like to debate.

Yes I agree, I don't have any beliefs in any god, but I do feel there is a collective universal consciousness that we are all one in. This idea of a universal consciousness is something I cannot prove also, even though I think quantum comes close to explaining it. But my whole point was that we shouldn't go out of our way and arrogantly pick on those who do have a belief in a god, that is of if they don't come to you first, but also I agree it can be fun just debating if that is what it really is.

I'm an equal opportunity picker-onner. Any unevidenced belief is fair game for ridicule, like "collective universal consciousness".

(September 13, 2014 at 6:49 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Why not? If someone has evidence and that brings you to facts you'd ignore facts just because you like your position?

Oh for goodness sake. We're talking about arguments FOR the existence of God here right. I'm not interested in philosophical games. I'm aware of these arguments and those against. They're all nonsense that just prove that there cannot be belief without faith. We, you and I, win.

---

(September 13, 2014 at 6:56 pm)Chas Wrote: Your assertion that Genesis is not a creation story is simply absurd. So, there's that.

So you read the book/ are aware of my position? Let's hear your rebuttal then.

(September 13, 2014 at 6:56 pm)Chas Wrote:

(September 13, 2014 at 11:02 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Humans are not gods, no. They are evidence of his creation, just like everything else in existence.

You can look at that any way you like. But If you want physical evidence of God, that's how you're framing the question, then his physical creation is all around you.

There is no proving independently that God made anything. I thought we'd established that. Unless you know different of course.

Carry on.

Nope - there is no evidence for your assertions; you haven't even tried to present any. Scientists have very good explanations for where humans came from, you don't. All you have is 'feels'.

So I will dismiss your unsupported, unevidenced assertions..

What assertions? Methinks now that you are whistling to the wind. The point that you are making has been properly dismissed several times now. Science class is down the hall.

---

(September 13, 2014 at 7:07 pm)Brian37 Wrote: "You are closed minded" is the argument of the politically correct. None of logic or scientific method has anything to do with being closed minded. It is like accusing a hammer of having an opinion. A hammer is a tool, it is not a political party or religion or opinion.

As Neil Degrees Tyson has said "The good thing about science is that it does not care if you accept it or not".

"Close minded" is sticking with a naked assertion. "Close minded" is living in the past. "Close minded is keeping a position despite facts being contrary to one's position".

So are you going to enlighten us of these logical flaws yet or are you going to keep us waiting.

Seems like you're a one trick pony. Or is that two...
1. A logical fallacy
2. Saying that you know of logical flaws when you don't

You start with the naked assertion that a god exists with no evidence at all. You ignore that others with other pet god claims do the same thing. You ignore the fact that cognition is an emergent property of biological evolution and not a required cause of the universe.

It is not a "one trick pony". IT IS YOU getting annoyed that I am focused and not distracted by your attempt to bait and switch. If others here want to entertain your naked assertion or wade through your yellow brick road they can. I don't do that.

NOW your starting point is a non material super hero.

Where is your evidence outside your book or personal belief that can be universally proven outside your own personal bias?

(September 13, 2014 at 7:09 pm)Chas Wrote: Please provide evidence that any of them are critical thinkers.

Please do me a favor and provide evidence that you are likewise one before I proceed to squander any more of my time qualifying why "elite scientist" and "professor" of a "prestigious school" such as Oxford demands a certain amount of capacity to think critically.

But for newbs, "Among the members of the National Academy of Sciences, 7% believed in God, 72.2% did not, and 20.8% were agnostic or had doubts." (somewhat misleading as God in this study is defined as "a God one may pray to in expectation of receiving an answer"; source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism). In terms of scientists in the U.S. in generally, 51% believe in God or a higher power compared to 41% who do not.


Source: http://people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/528.pdf

JennyA also made a recent thread breaking down the numbers in philosophy, and it's reasonable to assume that a number of them as well are not persuaded by metaphysical naturalism, not by a lack of scientific or philosophical insight, but by the ability of that point of view to address certain fundamental questions, such as ultimate causes or ultimate meaning. We could reach into history for more examples of those who certainly didn't profess atheism, such as Pascal, Hume, Kant, Faraday, Darwin, Heisenberg, Einstein, etc. but your only going to look more silly, so I'll spare you that.

At any time Chas, you can cut me off and tell us about the contributions you, as a critical thinker, are making towards science and philosophy in academia.

Quote:Sorry, no. There is precisely as much reason to believe in Poseidon or Thor or pink unicorns. Still waiting to hear about these alleged 'critical thinkers'.

Oh... right.

(September 13, 2014 at 1:53 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I don't have any beliefs in any god, but I do feel there is a collective universal consciousness that we are all one in. This idea of a universal consciousness is something I cannot prove

Ok in fairness to Froodo what you just said right here is an example of making a claim with no evidence. And like Froodo it is a naked assertion. And on top of that no credible scientist would take even this claim seriously.

If you truly believe this it is absurd to simply make that claim with no evidence and is the same flawed logic froodo is employing.

If you can accept that a hurricane does not need a cognition to start it, then why would the universe need a cognition or be a cognition itself?

Outside the cognition of biological life, the planet and universe are NOT thinking like a human nor is it one giant being itself. It is merely like a collection of moving objects much like you accept that a hurricane is a result of processes that require no cognition to occur.

(September 13, 2014 at 8:23 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(September 13, 2014 at 1:53 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote: I don't have any beliefs in any god, but I do feel there is a collective universal consciousness that we are all one in. This idea of a universal consciousness is something I cannot prove

When did I say that?

Once more you're not reading. I don't claim existence. I claim belief. I'm not getting annoyed. I'm simply holding you to book. Don't prod me and I won't respond.

Nice try at a deflection. Not buying it Bri. Sorry.

---

Brian you're in dream land. Whoever you quoted "feels" like there's something bigger. That's hardly a claim, and the author is quite open about their lack of commitment to anything tangible.

There you go saying that I'm making a naked assertion again. Please tell me what that is. You seem to have no clue.

(September 13, 2014 at 8:27 pm)Pickup_shonuff Wrote:

(September 13, 2014 at 8:23 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

When did I say that?

Naa, I don't know, I forget things after I say it, but anyway that's how I feel.

I'd still like to know what the hell Brian is talking about when he says "what you just said right here" and quotes me as saying something I didn't actually just say, or anything even remotely close to (where did he get the topic of "universal consciousness" from all this?). Looks to me like he either made an honest mistake and misquoted me, or else he's extremely disingenuous and proving his inability to have a "big boy" discussion.

---

(September 13, 2014 at 4:19 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: You don't think the psychologists, psychiatrists, neuroscientists and philosophers at the elite schools accept and understand (at least to some degree) mental compartmentalization?

There certainly no lack of experiments that demonstrate it.

That's really a non-sequitur. Of course, we as human beings do that. However, much of the divide among laypeople and academics stems from differences in worldview, which involve philosophical disagreements, and I think those can be both thoughtful and thoughtless on either side.