*HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-09-2015, 08:04 AM
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
(08-09-2015 07:27 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Theist are the perfect example for that, and yes, that is a problem.

Of course they are a perfect example for you, as atheists are a perfect example for them. In fact most folks who we see as holding a strongly opposing view point to our own, are one’s we interpret as this, while holding our own selves in high esteem. In fact even if the provided definition of free-thinking, it’s composed to explicitly exclude religious folks.

Quote:You can tell by the way they present their position, if he is offering evidence or his own experience to support his claim.
Of course it may be the case that his own experience and the evidence support the same conclusion.

Not really. It wouldn’t requires just offering evidence for your own experience, but giving more weight to negative accounts than positive ones, even if they are not one’s own.

Quote:It may be a constant weight, depends on a person, I try to not let my personal experiences interfere with my conclusions.

I hate to break it you, but that’s unlikely to be the case. You’re entirely weighted by your personal experiences when drawing conclusions here. If you hear different perspectives, those accounts are likely to being expressed by someone with a different set of personal experiences than one’s own. Our minds are a thing composed in a way to believe falsehoods, impaired by biases, and preferences, that it seems to be fairy tail to imagine that we can thinking objectively. We’re not particularly attuned to decipher what is true, but more so attuned to finding what is useful. It's far more affective to get people to reject religion, by making it unappealing, than to point out factual errors, a point made evident every campaign season.

We’re more prone to the feeling of believing we’re thinking rationally, that we’ve put our personal experiences aside, than actually putting them aside or thinking rationally. We tend to evaluate others with far less grace than we evaluate ourselves, and we’re prone to be far more critical of other peoples beliefs, than our own cherished ones.

"Tell me, muse, of the storyteller who has been thrust to the edge of the world, both an infant and an ancient, and through him reveal everyman." ---Homer the aged poet.

"In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-09-2015, 11:37 AM
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
(08-09-2015 08:04 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-09-2015 07:27 AM)Slowminded Wrote:  Theist are the perfect example for that, and yes, that is a problem.

Of course they are a perfect example for you, as atheists are a perfect example for them. In fact most folks who we see as holding a strongly opposing view point to our own, are one’s we interpret as this, while holding our own selves in high esteem. In fact even if the provided definition of free-thinking, it’s composed to explicitly exclude religious folks.

Quote:You can tell by the way they present their position, if he is offering evidence or his own experience to support his claim.
Of course it may be the case that his own experience and the evidence support the same conclusion.

Not really. It wouldn’t requires just offering evidence for your own experience, but giving more weight to negative accounts than positive ones, even if they are not one’s own.

Quote:It may be a constant weight, depends on a person, I try to not let my personal experiences interfere with my conclusions.

I hate to break it you, but that’s unlikely to be the case. You’re entirely weighted by your personal experiences when drawing conclusions here. If you hear different perspectives, those accounts are likely to being expressed by someone with a different set of personal experiences than one’s own. Our minds are a thing composed in a way to believe falsehoods, impaired by biases, and preferences, that it seems to be fairy tail to imagine that we can thinking objectively. We’re not particularly attuned to decipher what is true, but more so attuned to finding what is useful. It's far more affective to get people to reject religion, by making it unappealing, than to point out factual errors, a point made evident every campaign season.

We’re more prone to the feeling of believing we’re thinking rationally, that we’ve put our personal experiences aside, than actually putting them aside or thinking rationally. We tend to evaluate others with far less grace than we evaluate ourselves, and we’re prone to be far more critical of other peoples beliefs, than our own cherished ones.
Seems to me that you insist to make this look like a "it's jut your opinion dude" kind of thing, when it's really not.

Accounts are flimsy evidence at best, being personal or from somebody else's experience. For the most part it is a simple matter of true or false.

For example, did the biblical worldwide flood ever occur? There is no geological evidence that it did and if it did there would be abundance of evidence , and there is not enough water on earth for it anyway. Not much room for the opinions and biases and whatnot.

You forget that most of the atheists come from religious background , they didn't come to their conclusion about existence of god because they were biased towards unbelieving, quite the opposite in most cases.
Most went down kicking and screaming , they wanted to believe but simply couldn't ignore the evidence.


If you wan't personal experiences I will give you mine , you make what you want from it.

I was raised in a not very religious country and in a not very religious family. My family , theists , but religion was not a big part of daily life.
In my neck of the woods god is considered to be just a good fatherly figure that helps when help is needed, quite benevolent and forgiving.

So, when I took interest in religion out of my own curiosity , if anything I wanted god to be real. Because as per my understanding of it that would mean that there is some ultimate justice and that there is somebody to turn to when everything else fails.

So, you see, I was actually biased towards believing in god.

But then....I read the bible.

. . . ................................ ......................................... . [Image: 2dsmnow.gif] Eat at Joe's
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Slowminded's post
08-09-2015, 11:50 AM
RE: *HELP* Addressing an argument (partially); Freethinking Argument Against Naturalism
(08-09-2015 06:09 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  What does freethinking mean than? How do I tell whose freethinking and not?

That's my point. It doesn't really mean anything. It's a meaningless pop-culture buzz-phrase.

Because it is so poorly defined and flexible, the argument tries to use it as the pivot around which it equivocates between "free will" and "rationality". The two are not equivalent, and neither requires the existence of the other.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: