Thread: Critical Thinking from a squirrel

NEVERFLY,DYWYDDYR,
sit down,shut up, and learn something.
(i haven't had the oppertunity to train pavlos yet..)

there is a need for theist and atheists to learn to be better critical thinkers..

with that in mind, i want to reply to Pavlos's thread that you two shut down.(hence the Shut Up..)

Harold: i dont know pavlos well enough to know her intentions..that being said, there is nothing in her OP that speaks theist/atheist..
the first mention of religiosity was by neverfly (a known instigator) about closet evangilist..
then you attacking the thread as anti-theist trolling..that is what set dyw(another instigator) and never off..
the only thing i see is that it was posted in religion and not nowhere else..but then again it is the religious forum that has the most need of critical thinking..

BUT
I want to respond to this as a theist also..

From PAVLOSA Field Guide to Critical Thinking

I have noticed time and again that some members on this site and others, having no idea what evidence is, arguing over the burden of proof, not realizing why extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary proof, and make fallacy after fallacy, etc…

um..it helps to have links as a primer..

Critical thinking according to Wiki

This linked article below is a "MUST READ" for either those embarking on a journey of discovery and development, and for those who may be confused, and for those who don’t use there heads at all.

It will also act as a refresher for those who use there critical thinking skills regularly.
And to those of you who do, I wholly thank you, one and all.

tehe...see below

Here are a couple of excerpts:


The six rules of evidential reasoning are my own distillation and simplification of the scientific method. To make it easier for students to remember these half-dozen guidelines, I've coined an acronym for them: Ignoring the vowels, the letters in the word ”FiLCHeRS” stand for the rules of Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency. Apply these six rules to the evidence offered for any claim, I tell my students, and no one will ever be able to sneak up on you and steal your belief. You'll be filch-proof.

important KEYWORD higlighted by me..

(more about this quote later)

The evidence offered in support of any claim must be adequate to establish the truth of that claim, with these stipulations:
- The burden of proof for any claim rests on the claimant
- Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence
- Evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate for any paranormal claim

- Evidence must be classified either objective or subjective.
- the 'value' of such evidence must be evaluated according to perspective.(IOW dont compare apples to oranges)

A Field Guide to Critical Thinking - CSI

It is about time now, for humanity to be capable of filching! And to learn how to be filch proof!

filch?
isnt that a bird?

Falsifiability, Logic, Comprehensiveness, Honesty, Replicability, and Sufficiency.

back to this part..

Falsifiability,granted most theistic claims are falsifiable (able to reproduce them by other means)
Logic, there is a certain amount of logic in religion..problem is when it gets in the way of someone feeling bad, logic gets misplaced..
Comprehensiveness, um, don't we all have that problem?(comprehension)
Honesty, this is a double edged sword..honest to you or to oneself?..which the oneself part is what is needed for critical thinking..
Replicability, its not rocket science..its human nature..cant always replicate human behaviour..
Sufficiency, how does this apply to theist/atheist debates?

How can one be a critical thinker about something that is based on beliefs only and no facts to support it what so ever. I really don't want to take the time to think about a subject , religion, which is based totally on brain washing people into thinking that you only need to believe in order to know the truth about religion, any of them. Superior bengs would just come out and show themselves for they have nothing to hide and are supposedly omnipotent and can do anything so why are they so mystical and stealthy about whatever it is they are? Because they do not exist except in the minds of the people who believe it.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

How can one be a critical thinker about something that is based on beliefs only and no facts to support it what so ever.

how can one associate 'facts' with beliefs?
define 'belief' without using any religious, antagonistic, or derogatory terms.

I really don't want to take the time to think about a subject , religion, which is based totally on brain washing people into thinking that you only need to believe in order to know the truth about religion, any of them.

how does one overcome brainwashing?

Superior bengs would just come out and show themselves for they have nothing to hide and are supposedly omnipotent and can do anything so why are they so mystical and stealthy about whatever it is they are?

an assumption

Because they do not exist except in the minds of the people who believe it.

see subjective vs objective
God is a subject not an object.

Simply put, a belief is concluding something is true without having evidence. You can debate whether it is a justified belief or not. You can debate whether it is rigorously tested evidence or not.

I don't understand the point of this thread, for it seems to contradict itself. If one holds a belief, critical thinking about that belief was suspended. I understand that you hold a belief in a deity. If this have helped you in your life, then godspeed. To attempt to explain this belief as an exercise in critical thinking on a science forum will bring only frustration to you, and probably antagonize many others.

This thread will not be productive.

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

how can one associate 'facts' with beliefs?

This is the purpose of Critical Thinking. Similar to the scientific method, it is to reduce the bias of human desire.
It is for this reason that when using Critical Thinking, subjective evidence or circumstantial evidence is not evidence. They are considered factors.
It is also why extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Faith: To accept that something is true.

Belief: To accept something is probably or likely to be true.

Do you see the difference between the two?

One thing you need to understand; If I say that I believe that the Big Bang Model is an accurate description, this means I accept it as the likely probability, not as Truth.

Critical Thinking is the practice of examining the weight or merit of arguments and using the method to reach the likeliest probable conclusion.

So let's use Alien Visitors as an example.
There are a lot of claims that aliens have been or are currently visiting Earth. No one can honestly say they know for sure.
Each side puts forth their arguments as to why they think aliens have or have not visited the Earth.
The Critical Thinker comes in and listens to all that they have to say. Given the lack of evidence, the reasonable probabilities of other factors being responsible for unknowns (Such as hallucination over encounter, mistaken observation or pareidolia over matter of fact account), the Critical Thinker needs extraordinary evidence to conclude that aliens have visited Earth. Which is something that is lacking. He concludes that he does not support the idea that aliens have visited Earth.
Does this mean that he is saying for fact that aliens have not?
NO.
He is saying there is no reason to believe such has happened, it is neither fact nor truth. It's just an unlikely proposition.
Aliens may well have visited Earth, but left no conclusive evidence as having done so.
This Critical Thinker may well have gone home to his "X-Files" decorated bedroom and cry, because no one in that group he'd visited delivered any strong evidence, anything new, as e had been wanting or hoping.

Critical thinking serves the purpose of avoiding the bias of want, reaching probable conclusions, not truths and separating out the claims and the evidence and the factors into their proper places by weight and merit. This serves to avoid a person placing great importance on a small bit of evidence or a claim that has little merit, while ignoring evidence that contradicts what they want even if it has a lot of merit.

Rather than 'helping me or Dywyddyr' to learn something, you've only tried to show your own view. You don't get to make up your own version of the method as you go along anymore than you can do so with mathematics. Maybe you were thinking I'd go easier on you than on Harold. Well, you're probably right... You do not engage in a certain behavior, you've earned my respect numerous times and Harold, whom I gave the benefit of the doubt to in the beginning, has been increasingly getting the sharp edge of my tongue.

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

how can one associate 'facts' with beliefs?
define 'belief' without using any religious, antagonistic, or derogatory terms.

Ah Squirrel, ask and thou shalt recieve.

Definitions:

Belief: Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.
I've posted this before, but it seems to have been lost in the background noise.

Note that this says NOTHING whatsoever about whether that belief is true or not.

But THEN you go on and ask: is this belief justified? E.g. is there anything demonstrable that would lead you to that belief?
And THEN, if sufficient evidence is gathered to show conclusively that this belief is true (i.e. it can be shown, objectively, to others) it is called knowledge.

Knowledge is classed (defined) as a justified true belief ¹ - if any one of those steps fails then you don't know.

Example: if I believe something and there is some justification for that belief (my wife is faithful, I've never found anything to suggest she isn't) but it can't be shown to be TRUE - then it isn't knowledge. I don't know she's faithful, but I have a rational (justified) belief that she is.

1 Yes, okay there is some deep philosophical squabbling going on about this definition, but for this forum I'd say it's close enough for standard usage.

Here we go again. We've got to stop this folks, it's flaming and it's getting us nowhere. We all have equally good points but we are not going to see eye to eye with one another and the past few weeks has been evidence of that.

Let's just let it go, chill out and go watch a MacGyver cooking lesson together or something, see if squirrel or duck meat is on the menu (Jokes)

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

The evidence offered in support of any claim must be adequate to establish the truth of that claim, with these stipulations:
- The burden of proof for any claim rests on the claimant
- Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence
- Evidence based upon authority and/or testimony is always inadequate for any paranormal claim

- Evidence must be classified either objective or subjective.
- the 'value' of such evidence must be evaluated according to perspective.(IOW dont compare apples to oranges)

Uh okay.
As far as objective vs. subjective "evidence" here's the distinguishing points.
Per your quote - "The evidence offered in support of any claim must be adequate to establish the truth of that claim".
So what does "truth" mean?
Truth is most often used to mean in accord with fact or reality
Getting sort of circular isn't it?
But wait:
A fact (derived from the Latin factum, see below) is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.
In philosophy, reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.

This leads me, at least, to the conclusion that a fact, and reality, must be objectively and consensually demonstrable: ergo if it can't be shown to others that "this is the case" it isn't a fact nor can it be claimed to be real.
Therefore it is not true.
Therefore it is not evidence (if it is "merely" subjective).

The above does not, in away, invalidate anyone's experience, it simply means that if you can't demonstrate it [i.e. whatever that experience "means"] to others it isn't evidence.
Thus we get into the whole "yes but surely the behaviour of X number of people can be demonstrated, therefore it MUST be evidence": oops, it's only evidence of their behaviour, not the "reality" of the underlying assumptions/ object ¹ of those beliefs.

Subjective evidence is "evidence" only for the experiencer.

Notes
1 this one for Squirrel - when it comes to belief the subject is the believer, the object is whatever is believed in.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Therefore it is not evidence (if it is "merely" subjective).

Nailed it.

Saying "subjective evidence" is like saying, "Half pregnant."
Or "Nicely mean." Or better yet, "uncertainly assured."

Types of evidence

• Anecdotal evidence
• Intuition
• Personal experience
• Scientific evidence
• Testimonial

only one qualifies how you two are thinking of 'evidence'
you use in the scientific sense

(we have discused this before)

Truth:
see your own link about Types of truths..ie Coherence theory, and Consensus theory

Factfrom wiki)
"Misunderstanding of the difference between fact and theory sometimes leads to fallacy in rhetoric,^{[citation needed]} in which one person will say his or her claim is factual whereas the opponent's claim is just theory. Such statements indicate confusion as to the meanings of both words, suggesting the speaker believes that fact means "truth," and theory means "speculation."

"a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts

again you are limiting the definitions to a pure scientific meaning, there is alot more to life than science.

Notes
1 this one for Squirrel - when it comes to belief the subject is the believer, the object is whatever is believed .

god is a subject not an object.

Critical thinking: (as per wiki)

Critical thinking is reflective reasoning about beliefs and actions.

Different sources define critical thinking variously as:

• "reasonable reflective thinking focused on deciding what to believe or do"^[2]
• "the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action"^{[4][page needed]}
• "purposeful, self-regulatory judgment which results in interpretation, analysis, evaluation, and inference, as well as explanation of the evidential, conceptual, methodological, criteriological, or contextual considerations upon which that judgment is based"^[5]
• "includes a commitment to using reason in the formulation of our beliefs"^[6]

>>notice how many times it uses the word 'belief'.

"Critical thinking clarifies goals, examines assumptions, discerns hidden values, evaluates evidence, accomplishes actions, and assesses conclusions

and an interesting quote from it that i think applies to you two:
"The weak-sense critical thinker is a highly skilled but selfishly motivated pseudo-intellectual who works to advance one's personal agenda without seriously considering the ethical consequences and implications. Conceived as such, the weak-sense critical thinker is often highly skilled but uses those skills selectively so as to pursue unjust and selfish ends (Paul, 1995)."


"Conversely, the strong-sense critical thinker skillfully enters into the logic of problems and issues to see the problem for what it is without egocentric and/or socio-centric bias. Thus conceived, the strong-sense mind seeks to actively, systematically, reflectively, and fair-mindedly construct insight with sensitivity to expose and address the many obstacles that compromise high quality thought and learning. Using strong critical thinking we might evaluate an argument, for example, as worthy of acceptance because it is valid and based on true premises. Upon reflection, a speaker may be evaluated as a credible source of knowledge on a given topic.

"Critical thinking can occur whenever one judges, decides, or solves a problem; in general, whenever one must figure out what to believe or what to do, and do so in a reasonable and reflective way. Reading, writing, speaking, and listening can all be done critically or uncritically. Critical thinking is crucial to becoming a close reader and a substantive writer. Expressed in most general terms, critical thinking is "a way of taking up the problems of life."


to the Mods:
so critical thinking is directly tied to belief systems.
and as such your job is not to determine deletion of the thread based on your fears of what it will turn into, but to do what your title suggests..Moderate.
jump (moderate) the ppl who are getting out of hand and are not contributing anything of use to the thread.
help make this thread useful.

Dyw,Never:
quit limiting your own understanding of things.
sure you are allowed not to 'believe' in God..but that doesn't mean your arguments have to have a anti-theist flavor.
you know..entertain a thought without acepting it?..

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

Types of evidence

• Anecdotal evidence
• Intuition
• Personal experience
• Scientific evidence
• Testimonial

The links don't work.
However:
Anecdotal evidence: Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.^[1][2] Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a claim; it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence.
Intuition: Intuition provides us with beliefs that we cannot justify in every case.
Personal experience: this is, effectively a tautology for "subjective experience".
Testimonial: Uh, another tautology - see anecdotal evidence.

[only one qualifies how you two are thinking of 'evidence'
you use in the scientific sense

I'd rather say "in the reliable sense".

Truth:
see your own link about Types of truths..ie Coherence theory, and Consensus theory

Yes, and? One applies only to formal systems (of logic) and the other, largely, shows itself to be invalid.

"Misunderstanding of the difference between fact and theory sometimes leads to fallacy in rhetoric,^{[citation needed]} in which one person will say his or her claim is factual whereas the opponent's claim is just theory. Such statements indicate confusion as to the meanings of both words, suggesting the speaker believes that fact means "truth," and theory means "speculation."

"a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation, in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts

again you are limiting the definitions to a pure scientific meaning, there is alot more to life than science.

I don't see the conflict here. I didn't use the words "truth" or "fact" in the scientific context. AS far as I was aware I was using philosophical definition.
A "fact" can be defined as something which is the case, that is, a state of affairs. Does that differ significantly from what I originally gave?

god is a subject not an object.

Nope: The concept of belief presumes a subject (the believer) and an object of belief (the proposition).

>>notice how many times it uses the word 'belief'.

Notice that I gave a definition of belief (one that works) in post #6.

so critical thinking is directly tied to belief systems.

Incorrect: it doesn't require a belief "system", only that there is belief, for example in that ice cream exists, in order to prompt investigation.

"Conversely, the strong-sense critical thinker skillfully enters into the logic of problems and issues to see the problem for what it is without egocentric and/or socio-centric bias. Thus conceived, the strong-sense mind seeks to actively, systematically, reflectively, and fair-mindedly construct insight with sensitivity to expose and address the many obstacles that compromise high quality thought and learning. Using strong critical thinking we might evaluate an argument, for example, as worthy of acceptance because it is valid and based on true premises. Upon reflection, a speaker may be evaluated as a credible source of knowledge on a given topic.

Such as providing definitions, and that sort of thing? And NOT resorting to claims like "but you're using the scientific meanings..."

Dyw,Never:
quit limiting your own understanding of things.

Since I am the one going off and looking for, then posting, the definitions how am I "limiting my own understanding"?

sure you are allowed not to 'believe' in God..but that doesn't mean your arguments have to have a anti-theist flavor.

Exegesis, eiesegesis. I don't see ANY "anti-theist" flavour. I am, as usual, working directly from the information (and making efforts to find more) I have and am NOT making any judgements - I am, as usual, following the logic to the best of my abilities.
If you would kindly point out any "anti-theist" bias (any that is mine, that is - I'm not responsible for what the links say) then I'll do my best to either explain it or retract it.

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

Never(fly):
quit limiting your own understanding of things.
sure you are allowed not to 'believe' in God..but that doesn't mean your arguments have to have a anti-theist flavor.
you know..entertain a thought without acepting it?..

I'm only going to address this one bit for now:

NMSquirrel, labeling it as "Anti-Theist" is simply that- labeling it.
If we were talking about the days of old and the politics of Racism, I'd say much the same things. Because I stand against certain concepts. Calling me an anti-racist would just be a label. Asking me to simply entertain the notion of say, telling a woman she cannot hold a job because of her gender or because of her race would be beyond my sensibilities.

This "flavor" is not limited to one thing, as you suggest. Sculptor brought this up against me, as well. And I answered him- he refused to accept it.
I'll just repeat it.

It's "Anti-Bullshit."

It matters little to me if it's the absurdity of racism, of religion, of dogma, of UFOlogy, of Moon Hoax claims or 9-11 conspiracy claims or 'psychic abilities' like those of Sylvia Browne or John Edward.
I address each and every facet of B.S. the same way, with the same attitude. It's broad and across the board.

It just so happens that certain facets of theism fall into the "Influence others with B.S." category, such as public education, war and politics.

And for this, I present Stan Marsh in a spoiler tag for language:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Stan Marsh and John Edward.

I am saying this to you, John Edward. You are a liar, you are a fake, and you are the biggest douche ever.
John Edward: Everything I tell people is positive and gives them hope. How does that make me a douche?
Stan: Because the big questions in life are tough - Why are we here, where are we from, where are we going. But if people believe in asshole douchey liars like you, we're never going to find the real answers to those questions. You aren't just lying, you are slowing down the progress of all mankind. You douche.
____________________________

Stan: Look, my friend Kyle won't fly back home to Colorado. All I need you to do is talk to him and tell him, ya know, that the whole talking to dead people isn't real.
John Edward: Maybe it is for real.
Stan: Right, but it's not. It's a trick you do, and I need you to just let my friend Kyle know that so that he can go on with his life.
John Edward: Look. People have the right to be skeptical. I really hear voices in my head.
Stan: Yes. We all hear voices in our heads. It's called intuition. Get over yourself and tell my friend it's just for fun.
John Edward: Look. What I do doesn't hurt anybody. I give people closure and help them cope with life.
Stan: No, you give them false hope and a belief in something that isn't real.
John Edward: But I'm a psychic.
Stan: No dude, your a douche.
John Edward: I'm not a douche. What if I really believe that dead people talk to me?
Stan: Then you're a stupid douche.
John Edward: I think that I have had enough of your bullying me. Get out of my house or I'll run upstairs, lock myself in my panic room, and call the police.
Stan: I'm 9 years old.
John Edward: (screaming) I'm not talking to your friend and I'm not a douche. (runs upstairs) You better get out of my house or I'll call the police.
Stan: You are so a douche. I'm nominating you for the biggest douche in the universe award. You douche.

A lot of people do not understand why, exactly, people like me question actively examine their claims or beliefs. Many claim it is harmless.

But when others are convincing people that the government attacked it's own people in the U.S.A. to fake a war, accusing both military and civilian personal of coldly taking part in the killing of their own, I do not see that as harmless.
When dogma encourages and promotes ignorance, rejection of the scientific method and knowledge, I do not see that as harmless.
When charlatans prey on grieving or the frantic fears of families (And their wallets), promising psychic ability to locate lost loved ones or closure beyond the grave or hope for the living, I do not see that as harmless.
When people use politics, religious scripture, divine intuition or invented claims in order to subjugate another group of people based on sex, creed, religion (Yes, I'm protective of religion, as well- odd, no?), sexual preference or nationality, I do not see that as harmless.
When people use sensationalism and ignorance to promote ideas to make themselves wealthy off of the fears, grief, hopes or other genuine feelings of mankind, with religion, UFO claims, Ghost claims, Psychic claims or conspiracies- I take exception to it- I stand against it - I speak on behalf of mankind to promote critical thinking, knowledge, awareness and a lack of tolerance for bullshit.

So, maybe I've made myself clear on this forum and not for the first time, mind you.

It doesn't mean I hate God or religious people, I just hate when they do and say things that are stupid.
I don't hate conspiracy theorists, but I do hate it when they harass people and stir up hatred within others against innocent people.
I do not hate Sylvia Browne-- I just really really don't like her. Ok... well, Browne...
I do not hate people that claim aliens are visiting us, but I do hate it when they attack the integrity of those people, such as myself, serving to protect our nation.
I do not hate stupid people- but I hate stupidity and even the most intellectually challenged human being has the capability to meet his limitations and LEARN. Even the smartest genius has the capability of refusing to learn and acting like a blithering idiot.

So stop acting like I'm promoting hate. I stand against hate. I refute it, I encourage critical thinking, examination and granted, I ain't a sweetheart about it. Much of it deserves derision and harsh words. Because kindness simply doesn't grab the attention of those that lurk and read and follow these arguments. They deserve to have intellect respected and not insulted. They deserve to see strength in arguments, not pandering, political correctness or agreeing to disagree. They deserve answers, not bullshit. They deserve to have their google search not be in vain.
Do not - and this applies to anyone- do not reply to this post unless you've read the whole thing through. Any reply to me better say that they read the whole thing- or I will further demonstrate intolerance and bring the smackdown.
I know it's a long post. But if someone is too lazy to read a post which is approximately 1/1000th the length of most books, I deserve them no kindness for glancing, skimming, then jumping to conclusions and having something to say about it.

Clear.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

The links don't work.

because i just cut and pasted the links

However:
Anecdotal evidence: Because of the small sample, there is a larger chance that it may be unreliable due to cherry-picked or otherwise non-representative samples of typical cases.^[1][2] Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a claim; it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence.
Intuition: Intuition provides us with beliefs that we cannot justify in every case.
Personal experience: this is, effectively a tautology for "subjective experience".
Testimonial: Uh, another tautology - see anecdotal evidence.

that still does not invalidate it as evidence.

only one qualifies how you two are thinking of 'evidence'
you use in the scientific sense

I'd rather say "in the reliable sense".

this is what i am talking about 'limiting' your own understanding..you want to change the definitions to fit your opinion(instaed of the other way around)..ie 'I'd rather say' and your attempt to invalidate the definitions of the term 'evidence'

god is a subject not an object.

Nope: The concept of belief presumes a subject (the believer) and an object of belief (the proposition).

are you an object?
can a personality be an object?

so critical thinking is directly tied to belief systems.

Incorrect: it doesn't require a belief "system", only that there is belief, for example in that ice cream exists, in order to prompt investigation.

didn't say it 'required'..
and the ice cream is a bad example..
(we have had this convo.)

not for a sec do i think empirical objects are a belief.
the snow is white
ice cream exists
my computer is dead

these are not beliefs..these are facts..
(well..my computer is not dead, but if it was, it would be fact not belief)

Dyw,Never:
quit limiting your own understanding of things.

Since I am the one going off and looking for, then posting, the definitions how am I "limiting my own understanding"?

see above comment about you not accepting the definitions and 'i'd rather say'

sure you are allowed not to 'believe' in God..but that doesn't mean your arguments have to have a anti-theist flavor.

Exegesis, eiesegesis. I don't see ANY "anti-theist" flavour. I am, as usual, working directly from the information (and making efforts to find more) I have and NOT making any judgements - I am, as usual, following the logic to the best of my abilities.
If you would kindly point out any "anti-theist" bias (any that is mine, that is - I'm not responsible for what the links say) then I'll do my best to either explain it or retract it.

well granted i tend to read anti-theist more into certain posts from certain self proclaimed atheists than i should,
but that doesn't mean i am wrong..(just because i am paranoid, doesn't mean someone is not watching me..)

what makes me think that in this particular case, is when i can get you so close to understanding, then i sense you getting a 'he is making me believe in
God' mentality and you do a 180 degree turn in your arguements..

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

that still does not invalidate it as evidence.

Hmm, okay: Evidence is and includes everything that is used to reveal and determine the truth - if it's unreliable (anecdotal) how can it be used to get at the truth? If it's not justified (intuition) how can it be used to establish knowledge?

this is what i am talking about 'limiting' your own understanding..you want to change the definitions to fit your opinion(instaed of the other way around)..ie 'I'd rather say' and your attempt to invalidate the definitions of the term 'evidence'

No, I'm looking at those definitions and seeing that they state such things as "Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a claim", and "Accurate determination of whether an anecdote is "typical" requires statistical evidence^." i.e. anecdotal evidence requires further (non-anecdotal) evidence to verify it as evidence.
See later.

are you an object?
can a personality be an object?

An object of belief, yes.

didn't say it 'required'.

But you did mention "system".

well granted i tend to read anti-theist more into certain posts from certain self proclaimed atheists than i should,
but that doesn't mean i am wrong..(just because i am paranoid, doesn't mean someone is not watching me..)

If you're NOT wrong then point out my anti-theist bias. I thought you knew me better than that.

what makes me think that in this particular case, is when i can get you so close to understanding, then i sense you getting a 'he is making me believe in
God' mentality and you do a 180 degree turn in your arguements..

Huh? What 180?

Okays:
With regard to this whole evidence and me using the scientific version and you not...

What, exactly, are we trying to establish here? I.e. what is the "evidence" required to show/ support/ substantiate?
What are YOU trying to establish?
I think we may be at cross-purposes (now wouldn't THAT be surprising?).
OTOH I fail to see how what one is attempting to establish should affect the process of critical thinking.

as/re:
"subjective"

Can any of us ever be completely
or even partially/consistently
objective?

I rather think
not
but
then again
my view is subjective

Originally Posted by sculptor

Can any of us ever be completely or even partially/consistently objective?

That would be main reason why subjective "evidence" isn't generally taken as evidence.
The more people you can get to confirm any particular claim the more objective it becomes.

(And yes, I know where that argument can lead... here it comes 5...4...3..2...)

Irrelevant to whether or not we can be objective at all. Whether we can be 100% or not- does not suggest that we say "Screw it" and do not bother to try.

What are YOU trying to establish?

see :

Can any of us ever be completely
or even partially/consistently
objective?

AND:

Whether we can be 100% or not- does not suggest that we say "Screw it" and do not bother to try.

..1..The more people you can get to confirm any particular claim the more objective it becomes.

Long live Church of the Living Squirrel!

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

Can any of us ever be completely or even partially/consistently objective?

Um, no. I meant what are you trying establish as in: scientifc evidence for god? Rational (logical) argument in favour of accepting god as an explanation? Etc.
You keep complaing that I'm using the scientific definition of evidence - which definition would you like to use and why?

Whether we can be 100% or not- does not suggest that we say "Screw it" and do not bother to try.

With regard to what? Who's saying "screw it"?

Long live Church of the Living Squirrel!

10 million nuts can't be wrong?

Sometimes you do things just to exasperate me, don't you?

if not me, then who?

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

Long live Church of the Living Squirrel!

(Gets the BB gun)

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

Long live Church of the Living Squirrel!

(Gets the BB gun)

look behind you..



there is more than one Squirrel..

Originally Posted by sculptor

as/re:
"subjective"

Can any of us ever be completely
or even partially/consistently
objective?

I rather think
not
but
then again
my view is subjective

I think it is fairly easy to be objective partially, even consistently, but it depends entirely on the relation between the knowledge of the object by the subject.

For example if the object is "objectivity", it is fairly easy to be objective, a dictionary will do for any subject able to read. If the object is the Higgs Boson, or God, these are things orders of magnitude more complicated, and the half life of the time you are objective is gonna be quite short.

The funny thing is knowledge, that is quite often high-jacked by believes, which themselves are part of a narcissistic agenda, driven generally by fear, the "unknown/unknowable" or God/being wrong.

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

Originally Posted by Neverfly

Originally Posted by NMSquirrel

Long live Church of the Living Squirrel!

(Gets the BB gun)

look behind you..



there is more than one Squirrel..