I think they tend to lack critical thinking skills, an understanding of what science is and how it works.
Are atheists narrow minded?
- Thread starter Norsefire
- Start date
I think they tend to lack critical thinking skills, an understanding of what science is and how it works.
That is usually the basis for their turn to atheism, as well, usually (in my case at least) with disgust and shame. In the very least they have a certain trait although I don't want to talk about it.
Actually, atheism implies that they do know how to think critically and understand how science works.
So you know and have met every theist alive? Do I lack critical thinking skills? I don't think so at all. I criticize everything and anything. I anaylze the situation, in order to gain a better understanding of possibilities and probabilities.
Well, it does. It means you have weighed the evidence for the existence of God...saw that there was none, and moved on with your life. It means you don't allow dogma to make you say things like "We didn't evolve from monkeys!!".
I mean, if you believe in God it means you don't care or know that there is no evidence. If you don't, it means you studied it and came to a conclusion.
There's also nothing to suggest that Thor does not exist. Nor Ra. Nor Zeus. Your argument is weak.
Thor, Ra, and Zeus are specifics of the concept of God. Specifics and details require observation and evidence in order to be suggested. As does the concept of God, however as I've explained numerous times, there is an underlying observation and logic behind the idea of God. See my "intent, non intent" argument.
Oh, so you're talking about god in general, not god with a Big G? Oh. Then stop calling it God, and start calling it god.
However, the idea that there are so many different versions of these things, and the fact that so many of them revolve around basic human functions, it should go without saying that they are simply inventions of the human imagination.
Been there, conquered that. Don't tell me you've forgotten already...
And they are simply inventions of the human imagination. The specificatons, that is. The idea, however, is almost the same in every god of every civilization, it is based on observation of intelligence and complexity as forces of causation, thereby linking them. This makes the concept not illogical, implausible, or ridiculous in any way.
I don't recall, no, and I also don't recall my argument ever being properly refuted, except of course by Q calling me ignorant and indoctrinated.
You couldn't be more off-base. The reason we used to invent gods (and still do, to some extent) in society has nothing to do with observation of intelligence or complexity. It has to do with a lack of understanding. We used to think that thunder was the voice of god. We used to think that rain came from an ocean above the sky. We used to think that earthquakes and famines and plagues were punishment for bad deeds. We know better than that now, because we know what causes all that stuff.
The concept of a god is actually quite ridiculous. And the reason it's ridiculous is because it is based on all of what I just mentioned, and you still believe it.
I don't think you're ignorant, I just think you're completely off-base. I think you think you know more than you do. Also, I properly and completely refuted your argument. You just refuse to see it that way. Just as I have properly and completely refuted your argument here. Your inability to see it isn't my problem; it's yours.
Yes, a lack of understanding + an observation of intelligence = "god", or a supreme intelligent force of causation, did it.
You basically said the same thing I did but you named specific instances. That's where god comes from, and because it is supported, the idea, by observation, I think it isn't that ridiculous. Even with "understanding" we can never exclude the idea of intelligent causation on any grounds. We are, after all, perfect proof that intelligence is indeed a force of causation. Are we not also proof that gods exist? Humans are practically gods to lesser creatures, and this is what the situation may be for our own "gods"
No, you haven't refuted the argument. My intent/non intent argument remains firm, because it is supported by observation and logic. What was your refutation?
Shaman's refutation was perhaps the worst. He is, of course, an intelligent member but he made errors in his reasoning, with his "cheese/non cheese" argument.
His argument went like this, "if we can classify everything into two categories, cheese and non cheese, is it plausible to conclude that there is a 50/50 chance that the core of pluto is made of cheese?" This borders my argument because of my suggesting that, since we can classify everything into intent/non intent, there is a roughly even chance of either having been the reason for the beginning of the universe.
However, it's a flawed argument; firstly, specifications. "Non cheese" could be anything. He's being both broad and specific at the same time, when there are certainly far more things than just cheese. There is not, however, anything except intent or lack of intent.
Had he said, "if we can classify everything intwo two categories, cheese and hot sauce, is it plausible to conclude that there is a 50/50 chance that the core of pluto is made of cheese?"
I'd say, yes it's quite plausible. Why? Everything is either cheese or hot sauce.
Nononononono...
The lightning itself was not an observation of intelligent causation. It is the lack of understanding that breeds the god story.
See, that's the mistake you make; it isn't supported by observation, it is born from observation. There's a difference. You can't point to a cloud and say "That's proof of God", because a cloud is not inherently proof of God.
Practically, yes we can. Without that initial lack of understanding, we never would have come up with the god idea. So once you do have that understanding, you can dismiss god in favor of the logical solution.
But there is no evidence that intelligence is required for causation. Once you realize that, your whole argument is moot.
[/quote]Are we not also proof that gods exist? Humans are practically gods to lesser creatures, and this is what the situation may be for our own "gods"[/quote]
We are nowhere near gods to lesser creatures. We have superior intelligence, but they still kill us, they still displace us...nothing like gods at all.
Dude, go back to your thread and read my refutation. I'm not doing it all over again.
*************
M*W: Well, there is plenty of evidence on SciForums that you are a liar. How can you even live with yourself? You are a degenerate.
Last edited:
MW I believe what she was trying to say was:
Nope. They believe only in evidence especially their own claims. That anyone who doesnt' believe in them doesn't understand their own claims. That's the very defination of sly innocence.