With only a few posts to go...

With only a few posts to go...

  • Bob Enyart

    Votes: 57 64.0%
  • Zakath

    Votes: 32 36.0%

  • Total voters
    89

ZroKewl

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by novice
In your opinion... how does one think objectively?
I should have noted that I probably should have used the term "critical thinking" instead of "thinking objectively". To me, remaining "objective" and "thinking critically" are very similar, but "critical thinking" involves more than just remaining objective.

I found a nice website that discusses critical thinking. This is what I mean. Everyone should strive to think this way (maybe):

What is Critical Thinking?

No one always acts purely objectively and rationally. We connive for selfish interests. We gossip, boast, exaggerate, and equivocate. It is "only human" to wish to validate our prior knowledge, to vindicate our prior decisions, or to sustain our earlier beliefs. In the process of satisfying our ego, however, we can often deny ourselves intellectual growth and opportunity. We may not always want to apply critical thinking skills, but we should have those skills available to be employed when needed.

Critical thinking includes a complex combination of skills. Among the main characteristics are the following:

Rationality

We are thinking critically when we

* rely on reason rather than emotion,
* require evidence, ignore no known evidence, and follow evidence where it leads, and
* are concerned more with finding the best explanation than being right analyzing apparent confusion and asking questions.

Self-awareness

We are thinking critically when we

* weigh the influences of motives and bias, and
* recognize our own assumptions, prejudices, biases, or point of view.

Honesty

We are thinking critically when we recognize emotional impulses, selfish motives, nefarious purposes, or other modes of self-deception.

Open-mindedness

We are thinking critically when we

* evaluate all reasonable inferences
* consider a variety of possible viewpoints or perspectives,
* remain open to alternative interpretations
* accept a new explanation, model, or paradigm because it explains the evidence better, is simpler, or has fewer inconsistencies or covers more data
* accept new priorities in response to a reevaluation of the evidence or reassessment of our real interests, and
* do not reject unpopular views out of hand.

Discipline

We are thinking critically when we

* are precise, meticulous, comprehensive, and exhaustive
* resist manipulation and irrational appeals, and
* avoid snap judgments.

Judgment

We are thinking critically when we

* recognize the relevance and/or merit of alternative assumptions and perspectives
* recognize the extent and weight of evidence

In sum,

* Critical thinkers are by nature skeptical. They approach texts with the same skepticism and suspicion as they approach spoken remarks.
* Critical thinkers are active, not passive. They ask questions and analyze. They consciously apply tactics and strategies to uncover meaning or assure their understanding.
* Critical thinkers do not take an egotistical view of the world. They are open to new ideas and perspectives. They are willing to challenge their beliefs and investigate competing evidence.

Critical thinking enables us to recognize a wide range of subjective analyses of otherwise objective data, and to evaluate how well each analysis might meet our needs. Facts may be facts, but how we interpret them may vary.

By contrast, passive, non-critical thinkers take a simplistic view of the world.

* They see things in black and white, as either-or, rather than recognizing a variety of possible understanding.
* They see questions as yes or no with no subtleties.
* They fail to see linkages and complexities.
* They fail to recognize related elements.

Non-critical thinkers take an egotistical view of the world

* They take their facts as the only relevant ones.
* They take their own perspective as the only sensible one.
* They take their goal as the only valid one.

[http://www.critical-reading.com/critical_thinking.htm]
 

ZroKewl

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by Vitamin J
Why don't you admit that is total conjecture on your part?
I admit that was conjecture on my part. I did not mean to portray that as a statement of fact. It is a purely subjective inference I have made based on what I know about these two people (which is not much in relation to how much I know about myself, for instance), and on my prior experiences with other people and myself.

--ZK
 

Spartin

New member
Originally posted by Turbo
Thanks Claire.

But I don't agree that the question has no provable answer. It's just that some people reject the proof and evidence that exists.

It's common for theists to say things like, "You can't prove God," but I think the logical argument based on the laws of thermodynamics used in Enyart's first post is adequate logical proof for a supernatural Creator.

I also recognize that Christ's resurrection is supported by overwhelming historical and archaeological evidence. Together, these pieces of evidence prove the resurrection actually took place, just like evidence is used to prove whether a crime suspect is guilty, and therefore prove that Jesus is the God he claimed to be.


The word adequate isn't enough. Especially since the universe could have just always been here, possibly just in a different form. We haven't even reached close to the pinnicle of our knowledge in the universe and you are saying there is adequate knowledge to support your assertion. There isn't enough knowledge right now to even grasp the size of the universe let alone make a judgement like that. You are trusting in an explaination like Santa Claus to children. No real knowledge; therefore they have to trust in what is told as the explaination. Right now is the time to keep your assertions about God creating the universe against the laws of thermodynamics(Could be a 12th Law where there is an exception), because who is to say that in three hundred years we will unlock the knowledge to the creating of the universe. I believe this will be the case with the only thing being the timeframe may be off by hundreds to a thousand years. In relation to the resurrection of Christ, how is it I haven't been shown this evidence. If it was "Overwhelming" as you state, it would be publicized all over the world. I still think that it is a lack of knowledge and wanting to believe in Santa Claus. I could be all together wrong about this and I am fine with that, please provide some links with a more educated response than Bob the Scientist. I would be happy to look them over and give some thoughts on it.


Spartin
 

Eli_Cash

New member
I think Zakath is still winning, though not by as much. This is because, the evidentialist argument, while flawed, can become more convincing when the information presented is overwhelming.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by ZroKewl
. . . Bob hasn't honestly considered a non-God centered world view.
Bob was a nonchristian up to the age of 15, so he has considered the non-God centered world view.

Have you ever been a Christian Zrokewl? If not, then if you have held the non-God centered world view for your entire life then you can obviously be criticized for being too closed-minded to ever consider the God-centered world view.
 

Ash1

New member
vote suggestion

vote suggestion

i think when we vote we should say if we believe in god or not so the bias is out in the open. some honest atheist might actually see that bob is winning the debate, while some christians might think zakath is...but it would still be interesting to see what the voters believe.
 

The Berean

Well-known member
I've spent the last two days going through all the posts and taking notes but I stoped taking noted after five pages worth!! At this point I don't think anyone is winning. I am trying to be as objective as possible, however, as a former atheist turned Christian I have lived on both sides of the fence.

Here is my two cents


Pastor Bob:

His posts are verbose and long winded. He is trying to show that conclusion of God as creater is the only rational explanation for the universe. The problem with this is that one cannot DEDUCTIVELY prove that God exists based on natural evidence, only. However, a strong INDUCTIVE agruement can be made for the existence of God base on complexity of life and the ordered structure of the universe. Some of his information adds no value to his arguement, i.e. listing famous dead scientists. He tends to overwhelm Zakath with an overload of questions. I am not sure Pastor Bob really wants Zakath to answer ALL these questions.

Zakath:

Zakath is the dodge-ball master. He doesn't really respond and when he does, it usually an ad hominen attack or simply he reponds with "Pastor Bob is wrong." He does score points with his requests for Pastor Bob to show EVIDENCE that an absolute morality exists and EVIDENCE that points to God. Again I don't believe anyone can show natualistic evidence that proves that God exists. His arguement that since there is no agreement about who God really is, therefore God does not exist makes no sense. That's like answering that since we don't know what really causes cancer, cancer doesn't exist. Not well thought out.

I look forward to the rest of the debate...:thumb:
 

Curtsibling

New member
The Berean has a valid point.

At the end of the day, no-one can really prove the nature of the universe for sure...We will find out if our species lasts that long...

The great minds of history have never came cloe to a final conclusion on this question,
and we certainly are not going to with a debate in a website...:)

But intellectual sparring carries it's own reward...:cool:
 

Curtsibling

New member
Well, that is what you have the right to believe...I think otherwise.
When you finally leave the stage, I hope you will not be disappointed...

Actually, Tye.
Here is a conundrum!

If we are already in god's pocket, as you claim,
does it really matter what we do in this life anyway...?

Why would he care about something as insignificant as a single human?
Do you care about every blade of grass in your garden?

What do you think?
 

ZroKewl

BANNED
Banned
Originally posted by Jefferson
Bob was a nonchristian up to the age of 15, so he has considered the non-God centered world view.

Have you ever been a Christian Zrokewl? If not, then if you have held the non-God centered world view for your entire life then you can obviously be criticized for being too closed-minded to ever consider the God-centered world view.

Nobody really *considered* religion up to a certain point. Most likely, Bob never really critically examined Christian doctrine and the atheist thoughts about that doctrine prior to him becoming a Christian.

I was a Christian-by-choice -- one of those "every time the doors are open" sort of Christian. I was very in to Christian apologetics, so I know the arguments on that side like the back of my hand. I stopped being a Christian a couple of years ago, so I'm still learning things on the atheist side (although I'd consider myself to be a "strong agnostic" really -- mostly for connotative reasons).

--ZK
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Originally posted by ZroKewl
Most likely, Bob never really critically examined Christian doctrine and the atheist thoughts about that doctrine prior to him becoming a Christian.
Why do you assume this?
 

RogerB

New member
Originally posted by Curtsibling
Why would he care about something as insignificant as a single human?

Good question, but, the point is, he DOES care DEEPLY about every single human being.
 

LawFeelsGood

New member
Originally posted by RogerB
Good question, but, the point is, he DOES care DEEPLY about every single human being.

No it wasn't a good point. It was a dumb question. Why would a parent care about a single, insignificant child?:kookoo:
 

Curtsibling

New member
Originally posted by LawFeelsGood
No it wasn't a good point. It was a dumb question. Why would a parent care about a single, insignificant child?:kookoo:

It is only a dumb question if your mind is too small to comprehend the ramifications of it.

I'll assume you fall into that category.
 

jeremiah

BANNED
Banned
I wonder if any non believers have voted for Bob Enyart in this poll. We know that Jim Hilston has crossed over and voted for Zakath. Anyone else?
It is now 72 for bob and 25 for Zakath. Any non Christians among the 72? Any other Christians among the 25?
 
Last edited:

GodsProsecutor

New member
Originally posted by LawFeelsGood
No it wasn't a good point. It was a dumb question. Why would a parent care about a single, insignificant child?:kookoo:
Why would you insult your mother and father by equating our absentee god with a parent? :kookoo:
 

BillyBob

BANNED
Banned
I haven't been following any of this but I figured Zakath could use a vote...he seems to be a bit behind in the polls.
 
Top