Creationists push for critical thinking

Now, THAT is irony. Creationists have NEVER used critical thinking in their lives!

When individuals can be ostracized by their "loving and caring community" for asking questions about scripture and the pastors sermons, when they can be mentally abused for wondering where all of the fundraising money is going, when they can be vilified for disagreeing with the "values" of the church, then "critical thinking" is NOT a definition of their mental state.

BTW, I have known quite a few people who have experienced these very situations. The truth of the matter is that before the traumatic epiphany they each had about their particular churches, all of them were AFRAID to think for themselves. Evidence for the fact that churches are NOT good breeding grounds for independent thought, let alone critical thought.

polymath257 wrote:

Now, THAT is irony. Creationists have NEVER used critical thinking in their lives!

I agree. I believe creationists understand critical thinking to be, "It is critical that you think what the church tells you to think."

So from nothing came everything right? So to nothing shall everything return?

jUST BECAUSE wrote:

So from nothing came everything right? So to nothing shall everything return?

???

Creationist and Critical Thinking in the same phrase? That is about like saying Central INTELLIGENCE Agency. That does not compute even in the nether-world of fuzzy logic.

EADGBE wrote:

<quoted text>
???

I don't believe I have heard any real scientist of any merit say that everything came from nothing. The fact that we haven't unraveled the universe past the level of the Fine Constant doesn't mean that there is nothing below that level. Just as Homo Sapiens (Sapiens) has always moved his God or Gods abode the next step further away as he reached each, those unwilling to contemplate anything but an existential origin have moved their origin point. There is a central truth at some place/point, but we, as a species have neither the language or experience to describe that place/point. We cannot even be sure that what you or I see as "blue" is the same thing that others "see" as blue. Skepticism, while healthy in the main, is another force to be used with cautiion; by all.

polymath257 wrote:

Now, THAT is irony. Creationists have NEVER used critical thinking in their lives!

One thing is for sure: this thread demonstrates a profound lack of critical thinking. Lumping all believers together and claiming that none of them think critically based on a single bad experience with one church is not what I'd call critical thinking.

vinha1006 wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't believe I have heard any real scientist of any merit say that everything came from nothing. The fact that we haven't unraveled the universe past the level of the Fine Constant doesn't mean that there is nothing below that level. Just as Homo Sapiens (Sapiens) has always moved his God or Gods abode the next step further away as he reached each, those unwilling to contemplate anything but an existential origin have moved their origin point. There is a central truth at some place/point, but we, as a species have neither the language or experience to describe that place/point. We cannot even be sure that what you or I see as "blue" is the same thing that others "see" as blue. Skepticism, while healthy in the main, is another force to be used with cautiion; by all.

The difference being (among a few) that your something that preexisted existance is unintelligent, unconciouse and of only materialistic origin.
No mystery to me that naturalistic sciences have reached a point of no advance on the subject.
So to rephrase the "something" of non-mass of non-movement contained in a borderless nothing, and of it's own accord although unconciously and lacking of the ability of will to exist became all that is existance? Not to be topped, that conciouse material unconciously and without drive, motive or purpose began to consume, propogate and procreate should we say "live" (actually, we should change that word since create would indicate creation. Maybe... forcemorphed?) guided by laws of propogation and procreation that didn't exist until the existance of propogation and proceation? Also, in an existance without life there be no death. So being that now "life" just popped up how was then the law of death enacted? the law of decomposition? If being a law of decomposition preexisting life, what you are telling me is that the unconsious, unliving, unintelligent, non-mass, non-moving component of existance of it's own accord but lacking its own will became existance only to decompose? And only by chance did conciouse beings, an essential for realizing existance for existance sake. For would existance exist lest it be recognized?

BrianRasmussen wrote:

<quoted text>
One thing is for sure: this thread demonstrates a profound lack of critical thinking. Lumping all believers together and claiming that none of them think critically based on a single bad experience with one church is not what I'd call critical thinking.

Because they think that to believe in "God" (because that is the only name we can give a being of unimaginable proportions and potential in and of a plane only known because we were told...Ahem..) your either stupid, weak, or a tool and that only athiests are capable of thought, and are superior to those that disagree with thier undefined and constantly changing "origins" of matter and existance. Which I believe when the story ends will only circle all the way back to the exact same story we have been told since the beginning...Ahem.

And in that end we shall have our empirical evidence of God.

jUST BECAUSE wrote:

And in that end we shall have our empirical evidence of God.

Many religious faithful accept Theistic Evolution where they can still embrace the mystery and awe of a "first cause" while embracing the empirical scientific evidence already in hand. Therein lies an honest humility in understanding both the breadth and limitations of science. A rejection of pseudoscience is not the province of atheism alone as many theists recognize the vacuous nature of ID/creationism. It would appear the creationist's primary motivation is a lack of faith in their immortality which drives their "research" to "prove" their literal anthropomorphic deity.

polymath257 wrote:

Now, THAT is irony. Creationists have NEVER used critical thinking in their lives!

BrianRasmussen wrote:

One thing is for sure: this thread demonstrates a profound lack of critical thinking. Lumping all believers together and claiming that none of them think critically based on a single bad experience with one church is not what I'd call critical thinking.

One thing is for sure: Your post demonstrates a profound lack of reading comprehension. Polymath257 was talking about creationists, not "all believers".

One can not possibly embrace critical thinking while at the same time believing without proof that some invisible wizard in the sky created everything by magic or that one lives after death.
Faith is the exact opposite of critical thinking. they are incompatible.

jUST BECAUSE wrote:

So from nothing came everything right? So to nothing shall everything return?

Really? How do you get something out of nothing? Magic?

jUST BECAUSE wrote:

<quoted text>
Because they think that to believe in "God" (because that is the only name we can give a being of unimaginable proportions and potential in and of a plane only known because we were told...Ahem..) your either stupid, weak, or a tool and that only athiests are capable of thought, and are superior to those that disagree with thier undefined and constantly changing "origins" of matter and existance. Which I believe when the story ends will only circle all the way back to the exact same story we have been told since the beginning...Ahem.

Not at all. I happen to know many scientists and non-scientists who believe in a god, be it the Christian god (most of those I know) or another religion's god, that also feel creationists are ill-informed and typically willfully ignorant. They also accept the fact of evolution. When someone slams creationists, they are not slamming all believers, as many believers also slam creationists. It's interesting how creationists have this tendency to think they own Christianity or that they speak for Christianity, when in fact that's far from true.

Dennis2 wrote:

<quoted text>
Not at all. I happen to know many scientists and non-scientists who believe in a god, be it the Christian god (most of those I know) or another religion's god, that also feel creationists are ill-informed and typically willfully ignorant. They also accept the fact of evolution. When someone slams creationists, they are not slamming all believers, as many believers also slam creationists. It's interesting how creationists have this tendency to think they own Christianity or that they speak for Christianity, when in fact that's far from true.

How does a scientist come to hold a belief in god? Is this the same standard of proof they use in their science to arrive at their conclusions about god? If no, why does religon get a free pass from critical scrutiny? Isn't a person a hypocrite who has a double standard for determining what is true or false depending on their personal desires? I think so.

Pat wrote:

<quoted text>
How does a scientist come to hold a belief in god? Is this the same standard of proof they use in their science to arrive at their conclusions about god? If no, why does religon get a free pass from critical scrutiny? Isn't a person a hypocrite who has a double standard for determining what is true or false depending on their personal desires? I think so.

I personally don't believe in a god (I'm agnostic) but I very much disagree with your militant stance on the topic. Being in the sciences, I know many other scientists, and most of them have some sort of belief in a god, be it under a Christian viewpoint or other organized religion, or just a general belief that some higher power exists.

Their conclusions on a god are not based on scientific standards, nor do they deny scientific standards or findings. There is nothing in science that shows a god does not exist, just as there is nothing that shows one does exist. It is most certainly not hypocritical to BELIEVE (on faith) in a higher power while using science to determine what is fact and has evidence. I fully agree with Gould's statement that they are separate magisteria.

Dennis2 wrote:

<quoted text>
I personally don't believe in a god (I'm agnostic) but I very much disagree with your militant stance on the topic. Being in the sciences, I know many other scientists, and most of them have some sort of belief in a god, be it under a Christian viewpoint or other organized religion, or just a general belief that some higher power exists.
Their conclusions on a god are not based on scientific standards, nor do they deny scientific standards or findings. There is nothing in science that shows a god does not exist, just as there is nothing that shows one does exist. It is most certainly not hypocritical to BELIEVE (on faith) in a higher power while using science to determine what is fact and has evidence. I fully agree with Gould's statement that they are separate magisteria.

It most certainly is hypocritical to have a double standard and there is no rational reason at all to give religion a free pass from critical scrutiny and Gould offers no logical reason either.

"There is nothing in science that shows a god does not exist, just as there is nothing that shows one does exist."

Then why not be HONEST with yourself and hold a position of not knowing rather than coming to a premature conclusion with a belief in supernatural magic/god? There is nothing to disprove a pink and purple polka dot unicorn either but you won't see any scientists believing in that one will you? Why? Because it does not put them at a perceived personal advantage of some sort (like avoiding the finality of death). When evidence is lacking the only rational position to hold is that of either the negative atheist or the agnostic. Faith is just self serving delusion. It's letting ones emotions override their intellect and any decent scientist would understand that and reject holding unsupported beliefs. You aren't being honest with yourself when you believe blindly. You disrespect your own mind.

polymath257 wrote:

Now, THAT is irony. Creationists have NEVER used critical thinking in their lives!

"Creationists push for critical thinking"

I understand the words, but this sentence makes no sense.