Evolution Of Critical Thinking

[Wharwulif]

Critical thinking is a false concept-since you cannot see too much to the future to be able to see what the result would be...

Example-the dude that wrote the bible did not actually reflect upon the part of- "You will have children like the sands on the shore or stars at the sky" how would it really be-End result is 7 billion people that can barely hold themselves.if that writer would have seen the result of this primitive way of action he would go "SHIT THAT'S A FARTING BAD IDEA" and Rewrite it

[Valanor1]

If you concede to the possibility of God then it isn't hard to infer that He would intervene in his world. The bible says that He is waiting to save as many as he can before the last judgement, then He will "make all things new' and do away with death and suffering. The most profound miracle for me is the abiding presence of God, comforting me in times of turmoil, that is more precious than physical healing.

[Wharwulif]

@Valanor1 You know...the entire "the bible says" thing is getting old...the bible is just a rewrite of something very old that has been transmuted by time,exaggeration,bad translation,papers gone missing and the Pride of man.

You cannot truly believe all what your bible is saying by a simple reason that it's not the original copy of the so called "words of god" but it's a very raped and humanistic version of whatever it was before.

Stop believing in letters-start building a true faith of wisdom.

[Paseosinperro]

people treat dawkins like a God, if he moves a finger everybody laughs, is a kind of paradox

[FantasmaBAnco]

The mind is just a product of the brain.

What happens to the mind when the brain is damaged? Isn't the answer right there?

[Valanor1]

prayer has at one time instantly healed me of ailments. i've seen physical healings.

[allfitch84]

@Valanor1 First of all, prayer has not healed you. Second, no you haven't. Not in the way I know you're claiming. & let me add, you do know that your mind controls your body, so theoretically, you can heal yourself just by focusing on it. This is possible and is not supernatural in nature. God maybe real, but God is not concerned with our lives like people want to believe. God isn't going to intervene to save you & not another. & by the way, that would make God immoral if he has done so.

[Wharwulif]

@allfitch84 Hey,if there is a god,most chances are that it's just a very bored thing which is just capable of doing anything-so...with infinite boredom,it created a world to look at and have fun!

So...the eventual meaning of everything with god=true is just "DANCE YOU ALL!!!DANCE!!!"

Since only the most sick,twisted,demented,evil,bor­ed,annoying type of thing will create a world such as this,therefor it's clear to see it does not care about anything but it's own amusement-will only act when bored

[Bobweiserbudman]

The YouTube videos that Atheists don't want you to see- (Making sense of sensory information) (There is no spoon) (Are we just simulations) (What is real) (Seeing is believing how the brain interprets vision) (Q Matrix of illusion why we may be a part of it)

[Valanor1]

@Bobweiserbudman u r tha man, shot .

[isaacdempsey]

crap audio

[baldurus1]

Could someone tell me what the heck a Darwinist is???

Are there Newtonists, Einsteinists???

[kmsoileau]

"Thought experiment" Don't make me laugh. That's just your sad little retreat from my challenge. Nobody buys your "thought experiment" excuse.

[kmsoileau]

The point is, they don't claim competing theories are "delusions." Dawkins does. If he is going to take such an extremely aggressive position, he is under maximum obligation to prove his claims, not just "work on it."

[thelion2430]

humans are violent for a reason...and many dont know the reason...i give a tip...it is the environment within the organism lives...and because humans live in scarcity for thousands of years we behave in specific way...our monetary system is the ultimat amplified for SCARCITY...look this Lecture...on youtube `` NEW!!! 2009 - THE ZEITGEIST MOVEMENT ORIENTATION PRESENTATION `` then look a lecture with name...Peter Joseph: "Where are we going?"

[kmsoileau]

Instead of listening to and clapping for this dumb ass, the audience should be reading Blaise Pascal and other genuinely intelligent people.

[adlerbr12]

@kmsoileau

Pascal's way of thinking makes all who agree with him a hypocrite's.

And if you had one once of Richard Dawkins brains you would agree.

[kmsoileau]

@adlerbr12 You write like an idiot: "Pascal's way of thinking makes all who agree with him a hypocrite's. And if you had one once of Richard Dawkins brains you would agree."

Dawkins is an idiot blinded by a desperate desire for atheism to be correct.

Good luck learning to spell.

[maddtappin]

@kmsoileau you consider Richard Dawkins to not be intellectual? How do you define intellectual?

[kmsoileau]

@maddtappin Actually, I consider him to be an idiot. By that I mean, he makes egregious errors in reasoning and doesn't seem to realize it. For example, when O"Reilly asked him what proof he had that atheism is correct, Dawkins replied "We're working on it." Yet he wrote a book entitled "The God Delusion," which clearly asserts that he has proof that no God can exist.

[maddtappin]

@kmsoileau So for Dawkins to say atheism means we're not certain, is false?

[kmsoileau]

@maddtappin For Dawkins to say, in effect, that belief in a deity is a delusion, is to assert that he can prove that no deity exists. But of course he has no such proof.

[maddtappin]

@kmsoileau really, i thought it meant that "those who believe in a deity" cannot prove that the deity exists, hence the delusion...delusion being defined as: something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated.

[kmsoileau]

@maddtappin Really? I suppose you think modern physicists, who believe in quantum theory, and even string theory, are delusional too. Because there is no direct proof of either.

[maddtappin]

@kmsoileau No, I wouldn't say that, because modern physicists don't say they know string theory is correct. At the moment, they are still working on it.

[Pelonetillo]

wrong. a delusion is a mistaken or unfounded opinion or idea. belief in god is unfounded. if someone believes they talk to elvis' ghost, but can produce no evidence for this, they will be dismissed as delusional. likewise, if they claim elvis is still alive, and cite a half eaten, fried, peanut butter and banana sandwich as evidence, they will be dismissed as delusional again.

[kmsoileau]

@Pelonetillo Dawkins is under the delusion that he can truthfully state that believing in God is a delusion. All he can do is give reasons why he BELIEVES that this is a delusion. He cannot PROVE it's a delusion. To put it in your terms, where is the evidence that belief in God is a delusion?

[Pelonetillo]

wrong. delusions are unfounded beliefs. if you cannot demonstrate something exists, then to proclaim its existence is delusional. its the same principle applied to people who claim theyve seen elvis, leprechauns, etc. as soon as you can provide evidence for god, santa, or unicorns, people who believe in such things will no longer be called delusional. its that simple.

[kmsoileau]

@Pelonetillo "if you cannot demonstrate something exists, then to proclaim its existence is delusional." I proclaim that the Universe existed 1000 years ago. It was not created a moment ago, with everyone and everything initialized to appear as a Universe that is billions of years old. However, I have no proof of this. By your criterion, I am delusional.

[Pelonetillo]

no. there is evidence for that. look into how people have calculated the earths age (older than 1000 years), for instance, which necessarily exists within the universe. the belief in a universe of at least 1000 years of age is well-founded.

having dreams is very common, so are dreams about vacation destinations. many precedents make such a belief credible. if no one had ever heard of dreams or tahiti, and you couldnt demonstrate that these existed, then that would be different.

[kmsoileau]

@Pelonetillo "no. there is evidence for that" You clearly missed my point. In the hypothetical I gave all conditions are initialized to be consistent with the conclusion that the Universe is billions of years old. Yet in fact the Universe is only moments old. There is no way for a scientific experiment to come up with the right answer in this scenario.

[Pelonetillo]

no. you proclaimed, "the universe existed 1000 years ago," and that "it was not created a moment ago..." this would indicate that it is at least 1000 years old. if you meant something else, you shouldve written something else.

[kmsoileau]

@Pelonetillo No, Dufus, I specifically designed a scenario in which no scientific experiment could detect the truth, that is, that the Universe was only a moment old. Every scientific experiment would conclude (wrongly) that the Universe was more than 1000 years old.

[Pelonetillo]

this is what you claim now, but if you read your original comment, it says the following: " I proclaim that the Universe existed 1000 years ago. It was not created a moment ago..." thats what you wrote--you now claim the exact opposite, it seems. if youre too stupid to even follow your own comments, you shouldnt even bother trying to debate people.

[kmsoileau]

@Pelonetillo No Goober, the scenario was an example of a case in which I might proclaim something for which I had no proof. But I wouldn't be delusional in doing so. Get it? I doubt it.

[Pelonetillo]

unfortunately, you were too retarded to realize you proclaimed something for which there is a lot of evidence. seems you did so by mistake, but you did so nonetheless. i dont get retards like you, no. unfortunately for you, i dont assume someone means the opposite of what they say. sorry.

[kmsoileau]

@Pelonetillo You just aren't smart enough to debate me. See ya, Forrest...

[Pelonetillo]

lol, youve been debating yourself most of the time. look at these two retards arguing: "the Universe existed 1000 years ago. It was not created a moment ago..." "all conditions are initialized to be consistent with the conclusion that the Universe is billions of years old. Yet in fact the Universe is only moments old."

oh wait, thats just you arguing with yourself... hahaha.

[kmsoileau]

@Pelonetillo LOL It's sad that you cannot grasp the point I'm making. It's OK, not everyone can be smart.

[Pelonetillo]

you actually made two contradictory points. thats why its so funny. ^_^

[kmsoileau]

@Pelonetillo No, I didn't. That's what makes you so stupid. And funny.

[Pelonetillo]

@kmsoileau i quoted you. anyone can see it no matter how many times you deny it. lol

[vkain100]

Why the hell are that laughing, all he did was ask a question, mindless A holes.

[moyga]

His answer was true.

There used to be much debate in Philosophy about the mind and Qualia but most Philosophy professors today are Physicalists. We simply have no reason to believe that any part of us is non-physical anymore. I mean before we were aware of the brain and computer programming, the soul seemed logical, but not anymore. You can watch Shelly Kagans Yale lectures on death on YouTube if you want, he talks a little about it, or take a Mind and Body Philosophy unit at University.

[turtlespeed76]

I don`t like the hysterical laughter. Critical thinking is important but we do not always question everything in every-day-life. The audience seemed arrogant. By the way: I am an atheist myself but sometimes our own kind behaves weird too....

[TheMexxican]

Stupid audience why do they Laugh

[goog2k]

I thought the laughter was appropriate. I'm curious, after which comments did you find it not??

[liquidfreak]

They're American, what do you expect?

[Stndup1]

He is like a Politician that says a whole jibber jabber about absolutley nothing.. there is no scienticfic fact to what he just said. And people think he deserves clapping for? ok .. Stop feeding his ego.. and his pocket book He wants your money.

[domatron42]

Jesus Christ these fucking people just clap for anything don't they. Gets really irritating when you're watching Dawkins' videos.

[MyndSurfer]

An exemplar of how not to ask questions. Dawkins did very well finding something to respond.

Not the best intro to the question: "What is critical thinking?" ... But it does show how one critical thinker performs.

[Tavereen]

Who's more likely to survive, the cave man who looks at the dried up waterhole and thinks "Shit, there's no more water, I'd better leave and find more", or the cave man who looks at the dried up waterhole and thinks "Shit, there's no more water, I'd better pray that god sends me more"?

[badpanda84]

Of course eventually it dose rain at some point, and the caveman see that as proof of God.

[kmsoileau]

@Tavereen False dichotomy. Study debating techniques before you embarrass yourself further.

[Tavereen]

@kmsoileau

Of course it's a false dichotomy, it's not meant to mirror what really happened. It's merely a thought experiment, and false dichotomies are acceptable in thought experiments. I proposed the question merely to induce thought, the only way it would have been a logical fallacy is if I implied that this actually happened. Please, study debating techniques yourself. I've been doing this for quite a while now, I think that I've got a handle on it.

[kmsoileau]

@Tavereen Of course, every ignoramus thinks he has "a handle on it." But of course he's still an ignoramus.

[Tavereen]

@kmsoileau

For one who advises me to "study debating techniques" you sure don't seem to know anything about them yourself. You failed to recognize that a false dichotomy is not a logical fallacy when presented in the form of a thought experiment and now you bring personal insults into this. I ask you to maintain proper decorum. I did not insult you, nor will I, but I expect the same treatment from you.

[Pelonetillo]

depends on of hes by himself. if its two cavemen, the theist one is more likely to survive because hes gonna sit on his ass, safe n sound, praying, and the atheist is going run out and get water for everybody. and then the theist can thank god for the gift of water, and refer to the atheist as a vessel for gods will.

[natureman97]

@Tavereen Thats funny because us religous people dont pray to God for water, we would pray to God that we would find more water as we are searching, so techniqualy we are more critical thinkers because praying wouyld boost our moral letting us look for water more than you uther guys so the "searcher prayer" is more likly to survive than the "not pray but searcher"!

[Tavereen]

@natureman97 -- Morale is irrelevant to the act of finding water. What is relevant is the knowledge of where water might be, the ability to recognize such places, and the ability to extract the water. Morale doesn't factor into it. And no, prayer is not a form of critical thinking.

[natureman97]

@Tavereen Morale is a facor in most anny activity

[Tavereen]

@natureman97 -- In this case no, it is not a factor in being successful. All of the morale in the world won't do you a lick of good unless you know how and where to find water.

I'm reminded of an old saying. "One pair of hands at work is worth a million clasped in prayer." And it's true, prayer accomplishes nothing.

[natureman97]

@Tavereen If you have worcked sooo hard that you wouyld give up morale would keep you going

[Tavereen]

@natureman97 -- Now you're just reaching. Give up before you further embarrass yourself further.

[natureman97]

@Tavereen Reaching? Embarrass? I have not embarrassed my self at all. I have only been giving my point of view not trying to embarrass myself. If you ask me your seeming kind of emmarrassed.

[allfitch84]

@Tavereen That's why morality as we call is based on the foundation of survival as Darwin theorized. It was a rather simple ideology, but was complex in it's adaptation & implementation into tribes & eventually society because tribes that were strangers would be skeptical of the 'outsiders' views if they weren't exactly or nearly exactly as their own. We see it today, so is that so hard to believe? Hopefully our social & technological evolution will be able to bridge the gap that remains...

[Wharwulif]

@Tavereen The fact is that the man who goes away to search for water could end up finding none,while the one stays might done a smart thing,because since it's a waterhole,most chances that it will be filled again-by gravity+location...so,waiting some time,and what you know! water from the mountains come to fill the hole.

So,in perspective,they are both right and wrong,depending on the situation.

Since only Luck will determine it all,not faith nor mind

So-they both just role the dice-hope for-6-

[latkind3]

Some of the questions asked by this students were very poorly structured

[truthformeandyou]

Should we not apply critical thinking to the propositions put forth by Dawkins, or is he "Mr. God" of critical thinking? Of course he isn't. Dawkins hides from his personal experience in religion. He studies religion, but he will not dare experience it personally. Therefore, he is not qualified to make judgments of it. He stands on the sidelines and takes pot-shots at it.

[bu1ckgnx]

Is there some big secret knowledge you got from studying religion that makes those "pot shots" irrelevant, or are you just trying to dodge the attacks? Also, claiming he's "not qualified" is the reverse of an appeal to authority. You claim that he can't talk about it because he's not religiously experienced, essentially claiming that only religious people can talk about the subject, thus eliminating ALL opposing views! You basically say those who do not believe cannot criticize??? I THINK NOT!!!

[redskin133]

he has experienced it, he was brought up to believe in christianity as a young man

[jazzx251]

I don't believe in fairies, but who am I to question their existence?

After all, I have not studied the different types of wings that fairies possess and what gifts they leave for each type of tooth.

I am actually very ignorant of the social structure of fairy society and their long and rich history.

That's because I'm unqualified in fairyology.

So who am I to say they don't exist even though nobody has seen one, even the fairyologists?

[JustOneQuestion]

jazz, really poor analogy there as Dawkins has clearly studied the subject.

"So who am I to say they don't exist even though nobody has seen one, even the fairyologists?"

let's take the tooth fairy for an example, no one has ever seen one, but people have seen their effects (tooth replaced with money) but then they grow up and learn the truth and realise how silly they've been for believing in something they've never seen.

If the "fairyologists" haven't seen one.. what are they studying?

[jazzx251]

I was being sarcastic.

There's essentially no difference between fairyology and theology.

I was trying to show how absurd the idea is that you shouldn't comment on religious matters unless you have a degree in theology.

[JustOneQuestion]

lol my bad dunno how I missed that, in my defence I've read comments which were even more absurd from people being deadly serious.

[Buckman82]

ya jazzx was actually quoting dawkins' analogy of the tooth fairy LOLOLOL

[JoplinFreethinkers]

Do you really think fairies "might" exist? How about enough to have your children taught they are real, and have millions of dollars funneled into the "education" of faries... Would younot protest having your children taught they are real, and have millions of dollars funneled into the education of faries. Would you truly not oppose this type of stupidity? I bet you would.

[jazzx251]

No.

No.

No - I would not NOT protest.

As above.

Most likely.

My early comment in this thread was a send-up of the absurd religious argument that you should butt-out of religious discourse unless you've got a masters in theology.

It was satire.

Here's another one:

Cruxidigiology - or the study of how crossing your fingers brings you good luck. Don't say it doesn't work unless you've studied it to at least degree level! I once crossed my fingers and got a blackjack the next hand - it works!

[bu1ckgnx]

DNA contains information, but there's also a lot of "junk" DNA (considered neutral). Again, DNA evolved over MANY generations to accumulate all that information. Read Dawkin's book, The Selfish Gene. Also, the only evidence we have for the mind is it's just an attribute of the brain. The burden of proof is on YOU (or people like you) to show that it is immaterial. Also, trying to appeal to human arrogance by highlighting "goo" is pathetic. Our "goo" ancestors don't make humans any less amazing.

[WileNot]

Design, Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, Matter, Energy, Change Happens But Not By Chance From A Big Bang. 0(s)+0(t)+0(c)= 0(0)

I couldn't find myself being moral at all if I found out that I came from some Big Bang. What would right mean to anybody if we all simply came from goo? Don't tell me rape is wrong if I happened by Chance, it's just natural selection. Love means nothing so don't fall for it, find the perfect person to procreate with. Big Bang- still a no brainer

[bu1ckgnx]

You show a lack of understanding of the Big Bang and Evolution. Space was infinite even at the moment of the Big Bang, but it's a bigger infinity now. Read Brian Greene. Evolution works by random mutation and natural selection over MANY generations. There are natural laws that "govern" what random mutations will be beneficial. Chance doesn't change morality because of things like stable states (in nature) and game theory. Morality arises from altruism.

[Greig1424]

humanity has basically agreed that rape is wrong we dont need the big bang theory to understand that, morals and laws change over generations because we are evolving!

[dlandon2000]

Evolution is the opposite of chance. Natural selection can be considered a blind designer, the beneficial genes propogate better than the average genes which propogate better than the detremantal genes.

I'm horrified that you'd go raping and killing if you found out there is no god!! If so you are an immoral person. Are things moral simply because god says so or does god know what is moral and he tells us?

[wimscheers]

*****