Interbane, you are hard to pin down. Probably your wrestling skills. However,

Interbane wrote:The benefit of humility and honesty in a thought process is unquestionable.

Humility and honesty are virtues of religion. I'm so pleased you are finding them in critical thinking.

Thomas, I can't recall your stating what you believe. If you care to, I think this might help everyone understand your recent intensity.

TH: "Humility and honesty are virtues of religion. I'm so pleased you are finding them in critical thinking."

They are virtues, but they 'belong' no where. Just as the golden rule of morality does not belong to religion, but precedes it, the virtues of humility and honesty were understood by philosophers before the bible was written.

It's not that I've found them in critical thinking really. I remember vividly sitting at the dinner table as a child, having a normal conversation with my parents. At one point(the memorable point) my father says something so astonishing that my face lit up and I asked him "Really?!?". To which my mother replied, "No, he's messing with you again, stop falling for it!". Yet there wasn't even a hint of deception on his face, it was Hollywood acting. It sparked a very curious interest in me about whether or not I could also be so deceptive, but within my own young brain. I laid awake at night for the following few years for hours at a time pondering the universe and other imponderables that I didn't know at the time were considered philosophical. One of the guiding principles I used was that if I ever felt confident in something I knew, I would zero in on that feeling and break down what it was that I was confident about, in case the confidence was the "feeling of knowing" that was immunizing me from analyzing some of my core beliefs.

A few years further down the road some of my military buddies made me take an online(and inaccurate) IQ test, and the test said I was a visionary philosopher. So naturally curious, I purchased some philosophy books on my own and fell in love with it. Many of the authors would, from time to time, mention critical thinking and it's various uses and aspects. Critical thinking at first sounded painful, but in a book by an Indian(or some ethnicity with a lot of J's) philosopher, he stressed the importance of intellectual honesty(though I think he used different terms), and how it was central to critical thinking. It was based on that information that I considered myself a critical thinker. That even when posed with what I disagree with most, I would give it my honest and utmost consideration.

So when you label me as an atheist, or a critical thinker, or a liberal, those are all terms that I don't identify with 'me' any more than I'm an athlete or a citizen. They are labels too general to be precise, and your ridiculous comments give me the visual of straw men popping up left and right. Perhaps you should take your own words to heart: "...fallacious thinking isn't a matter of character."

DWill wrote:Thomas, I can't recall your stating what you believe.

Confucian.

Interbane wrote:TH: "Humility and honesty are virtues of religion. I'm so pleased you are finding them in critical thinking."

They are virtues, but they 'belong' no where. Just as the golden rule of morality does not belong to religion, but precedes it, the virtues of humility and honesty were understood by philosophers before the bible was written.

. . . .

So when you label me as an atheist. . .

If you find humility, honesty, and the Golden Rule hidden in the heart of things, I certainly wouldn't label you an atheist.

TH: "If you find humility, honesty, and the Golden Rule hidden in the heart of things, I certainly wouldn't label you an atheist."

I won't be offended whatever you label me, unless it's intentionally an insult. The only thing an atheist is is an A-theist. Beyond that, personal philosophies vary just as they do between any person. For example, I believe in a mechanistic, determined universe, though I'm not sure many atheists believe the same. If you are continually polarized to see what's wrong in our posts, you'll be blind to what's right. There is some of both, but only by focusing on what's right will you get an understanding of who we are.

Thomas Hood wrote:

But as I have repeatedly pointed out, using evidence from top critical thinkers, critical thinking involves value-judgments that are absent in traditional logic. People believe in critical thinking.

Tom, you talk about critical thinking like it is a type of mental illness. I don't care what type of thinking you choose to have, but if the information you rely upon has not value, it is useless. Take gossip as an example. If my neighbor on my right tells me that my neighbor on the left is getting devorced, should I just believe it? No, that information has no value. Last semester I questioned a professor, I had supporting information that she was wrong on a point. She accepted it, and the entire class received the benefit. I stood up for myself.

Is this what the problem is? Are you upset with people because they are assertive and have the balls to stand up for themselves, and question what is being said to them? Do you believe everything that is in the newspapers, or everything that is on the web. I have noticed that you use wiki sites often, I'll tell you something, wiki sites are unreliable, I try to avoid them, I see the information on wiki sites as doubtful.

Poettess found a link, and from that link, you somehow found a way to take information from it, spin it around, and use it to support your own views. I read the article, and I read what you decided to take from it. You asked for information from my aunt, I provided it, and again, you spun it around to suit your needs. Information can not be used that way. I truly believed you were searching for purposeful knowledge, I was not aware that what you wanted was knowledge to suit your purpose. Sorry, it doesn't work that way, that is not logical.

Critical reading is crucial Tom. And yes, you must make value judgements. When searching the web for research on a topic, I not only want credible information, but a credible source as well. Is the info credible, is the source credible. If I answer no to these, I discount it, even if it supports my view. This, is logical to me.

Knowledge is a wonderful thing Tom, I don't understand why you are so against it. Critical thinking is a tool, not a religion, or a belief. I use it, I don't worship it. I believe in myself, that through research and investigation, I will accumulate information on which to base an opinion. An informed opinion.

Traditional logic? What is that? Believe everything you hear, because that is not logical to me.

Atheists are critical thinkers, stand on this platform Tom, it is a huge step up from the last comparison you made.

Suzanne wrote:Tom, you talk about critical thinking like it is a type of mental illness.

Mental illness is sometimes treatable. Critical thinking is an egotistically resistant condition.

If my neighbor on my right tells me that my neighbor on the left is getting divorced, should I just believe it?

Until you have reason to think otherwise, yes, you should accept it. If your neighbor has been a responsible informant in the past, why not accept it now? Checking costs. It takes time, effort, and sometimes expense. Most people aren't trying to deceive us, although they may be mistaken.

You asked for information from my aunt, I provided it, and again, you spun it around to suit your needs.

I wasn't trying to deceive you in asking for information about your aunt. (I had forgotten her name.) Most of the introduction to one of your aunt's books on critical thinking is available as a Google Book. I went to the trouble of looking it up and reading it. I doubt that any of the critical thinkers at BookTalk have.

I do object to the arrogance of critical thinkers who believe that their thinking, which is more emoting than thinking, is superior to everybody else's and, therefore, we inferior folk deserve to be discriminated against.

Tom

TH
It is further supporting evidence for my view that critical thinking is emotional thinking for liberal ends.

Me
What about us atheists that are not liberal?

TH
Then I think you are going to have issues with critical thinking, not that critical thinkers present a united front.

Then your theory is in trouble… anyone can be a critical thinker…

As has been stated already critical thinking is a tool, not a belief, liberals use it, conservatives use it, independents use it… I suspect that even you use it (although I am beginning to wonder). It is simply critical analysis of a problem or belief using all the best thinking tools and information available and taking nothing for granted, with a strong emphasis on fairness to all credible positions.

Even religious people can think critically and I think that almost all of you do… just not about your religious beliefs.

TH
Since critical thinking is a covert imposition of values -- really, a replacement for tradition religion -- it lends itself to abuse:

Anyone denied employment, promotion, or admission to a school for failure to toe the critical thinking line should sue.

Some positions require critical thinking… police investigators, archeologists, car insurance investigators, teachers… etc. If a person cannot or will not show fairness and critical analysis to their data and questions then their investigations will have severe faults.

If they loose their job to being incompetent then they have no rite to sue.

TH
Please be fair, Frank. I asked you for your recommended sources:

I have been so much more than fair already...

Sources? For what… how to think fairly/rationally/critically?

My sources are my personal ethics and search for honesty and truth… no matter what my personal belief might be on the subject.

Furthermore my search is never complete... new data is always considered and my beliefs altered to meet any changes mandated by new evidence.

TH
I see critical thinking as a substitute for religion, and if I thought it were a good substitute, I'd accept it. But it isn't a good substitute.

That’s because you are proceeding from a false assumption… that we all need a religious type belief... but since we do not have one you seem hell bent to create one for us.

Critical thinking does not replace religion; it simply exposes the fallacy of many of the religious stories and claims.

Where a person goes from there is their own business.

Later
.

TH
Until you have reason to think otherwise, yes, you should accept it. If your neighbor has been a responsible informant in the past, why not accept it now?

Yes kids we have a lazy thinker here… TH you have made several assumptions here that are not necessarily true…

It was never stated that the gossiper was reliable… nor was it stated where they got their information… so to just accept their claim might be a bad idea… just imagine asking the other neighbor how the divorce was going only to find out that your information was wrong…

I think it prudent to check out information like that before accepting it as fact… apparently you don’t.

TH
Checking costs. It takes time, effort, and sometimes expense. Most people aren't trying to deceive us, although they may be mistaken.

More laziness… I suppose the truth of the matter means nothing?

Sometimes accepting a false claim is more work than not (religion) religious people spend vast amounts of time and energy worshiping that could be better used. And even assuming that some of them are correct (their god is real… and that is a huge assumption) what about the millions that do not pray to their god?

Wasting time…

TH
I do object to the arrogance of critical thinkers who believe that their thinking, which is more emoting than thinking, is superior to everybody else's and, therefore, we inferior folk deserve to be discriminated against.

Here we have another misplaced argument… when have any of us claimed that we are superior thinkers? If anything we have said (repeatedly) that critical thinking is commonly used… the difference seems to be where it is applied (religious beliefs).

And I would love to hear about your discrimination…

Have you had your car vandalized?

Have you been shunned by hoards of atheists?

Do you risk loosing your job because someone might find out that you do believe?

Do your in-laws consider you more dangerous than rapist because your belief can destroy their daughter’s eternal peace while a rapist can only harm the flesh?

Are your beliefs commonly and purposely misrepresented by the media and other large organized groups of people?

Are you regularly demonized in atheist churches across the planet for believing in god?

Be serious… stop looking for support from sympathy and really hear what we are saying.

TH
I wasn't trying to deceive you in asking for information about your aunt.

Maybe you weren’t trying to deceive anyone, but you were looking for something that fit your already solidified stance and you are guilty of twisting the information there to suit your needs.

TH
I went to the trouble of looking it up and reading it. I doubt that any of the critical thinkers at BookTalk have.

First of all you are wrong, I read it too, but why would we need to?

Sure the information there is better written and eloquent than I could write it, but the essence of the material is the same as my understanding of the subject.

That for us is like looking up walking… it is something we do regularly… and despite your research you are still NOT understanding what critical thinking is.

You do not even seem to be trying to understand it, you are trying to force it into the personal framework of your already set belief…

As Suzanne said you might benefit from a little critical reading…

Later