normdoering
Unregistered
|
Raging Bee wrote:
<quote><quote>Part of the scientific method is the use of skeptical investigation and critical thinking. Do you see people applying those things to their religious beliefs?</quote>
Actually, norm, I do: </quote>
To the extent that you know what the tools of skepticism and critical thinking are you perhaps see that. But, the problem is, as is evidenced to me from your posts here on Panda's thumb, you're not working with a full arsenal of skeptical and critical tools. You got short changed by our educational system.
<quote>...many Christians and Pagans have, over time, explicitly changed their opinions, and their interpretations of their holy texts or other received wisdom, to accomodate new knowledge and experiences. </quote>
That doesn't mean they're working with a full arsenal of skeptical tools. In fact, the way you've stated it, it's not even evidence they are using <b>any</b> skeptical tools.
<quote>Furthermore, those persons of faith whom I have encountered show, in general, no less capacity to think critically or assimilate new information than the atheists I’ve encountered. </quote>
Let me point out that in observing your thinking here that you in fact do demonstrate a reduced capacity for critical thinking. You seem to depend more on popular opinion and rumor than investigation. You repeat popular opinions that are demonstratably Christian apologetics not facts.
<quote>(The fact that Chiefly could post so many links to the publications of established Christian churches on this subject, right here on PT, and get no acknowledgement from you, speaks volumes about your own ability to think critically.)</quote>
When did he do that?
But no matter, I've read enough Christian apologetics to see the patterns and I expect to only find lip service paid to things like science and critical thinking. Looking for more would be like looking for a needle in a hay stack -- so don't give me a mountain of lists, give me direct examples quoted in your post, not paraphrased and interpreted in the vague off the mark way you do.
<quote>...
re Harris: yes, he said that in the Salon interview. Then he contradicted himself in the very next sentence, without acknowledging there was a contradiction. Harris is a shameless bigot, twisting what little he knows of religion to suit his own prejudices.</quote>
<b>Why did you lie? </b>
I just read the Salon interview and there is no such example.
<quote>... you’re actually citing a WorldNutDaily poll as evidence to support your opinions?</quote>
It was an ABC poll, WorldNutDaily only wrote an article about it. They can skew the interpretation, but only ABC can skew the data. This is a pretty good example of screwed up your thinking is. It was also not the only one I sited. I also called it skewed. It does represent a high end possibility.
I also gave a BBC poll.
They were simply the first two links I found -- so they are generally random samplings of polls.
<quote>Then you’re saying the rest of us “don’t know the Bible?”</quote>
Do you claim to know the Bible? Do you read it?
Why don't you come out and say "Hey I know the Bible, it says this --" instead of complaining about the fact that I'm telling you that you don't know the Bible?
<quote>“You do not know the Bible” is a standard refrain of fundies, wingnuts and religious simpletons, and your repeated use of it, again, speaks volumes about your own mind-set and where it comes from.)</quote>
Yea, it comes from someone who has read that book and then sees there are a #### of a lot of people who don't know what they are talking about when speak about the Bible -- relying on popular opinion and rumor rather than on seeing for themselves what is in that book. I guess that is a trait I share with fundies as opposed to people who get their knowledge from popular opinion and preachers and take it as fact.
|
|
|
