RE: Yes I pick on all religions.
September 13, 2014 at 3:50 pm
(This post was last modified: September 13, 2014 at 4:11 pm by Simon Moon.)
(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.
No.
They just compartmentalize their theistic beliefs.
They put them in a special place in their minds where they refuse or fail to evaluate them with the same level of critical thinking they use for all the other supernatural and extraordinary claims they have rejected.
Ask these critical thinking theists why they reject; bigfoot, UFO abductions, ancient aliens, levitating gurus, crystal healing, Tarot, etc, etc and they will almost assuredly reject them for the correct reasons (lack of: evidence, reasoned argument and valid/sound logic).
Ask them why they believe in a god, and you will not get the same level of critical thinking. You will get mental gymnastics.
Why are you bringing up metaphysical naturalism? I doubt most atheists are metaphysical naturalists, nor is it necessary to reject the supernatural.
The belief in gods and disbelieving in gods are not on equal intellectual, evidential, philosophical, ontological or existential footing.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
