Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
187 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [8] | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Reframing the fervent activist atheist rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
I re-read a post of mine on activist atheists.
It wasn't a feel-good piece.

Then I thought, "Maybe fervent activist atheists actually DO want to use reason and critical thinking? Maybe they just haven't been taught well about such things."

Someone with some credibility in the area of modern intelligence said something like, "People today are thinking for themselves much more", followed shortly after by, "Its a crime that they haven't been given the tools to do this well".
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/ar...

Towards that end I'm going to run a poll - and ask all of our atheists some questions that will throw some light on how much the various atheist sub-groups value reason.

And if they value reason more than the freedom to present, as fact, whatever statement feels good.

I'm open to suggested questions and bribes.
2 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think yoour going to be told that the whole point of athism is that they do use reason and critical thinking, thats why they are athiests.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Kelsey Rinella
United States
Rochester
New York
flag msg tools
I am proud to have opposed those who describe all who oppose them as "Tender Flowers" and "Special Snowflakes".
badge
Check out Stately Play for news and reviews of games worth thinking about.
Avatar
mbmb
I think you'll want to consider a distinction between kinds of presentation. You can probably get some traction for opposition to being allowed to present a feel-good statement as fact to those unable to critically examine that statement (usually children). Many will want to make a distinction between such situations and interactions between competent adults, I suspect.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
slatersteven wrote:
I think yoour going to be told that the whole point of athism is that they do use reason and critical thinking, thats why they are athiests.
Do you think they might accept that someone, even an atheist, might think they are reasoning well when, in fact, they are not?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
I think yoour going to be told that the whole point of athism is that they do use reason and critical thinking, thats why they are athiests.
Fo you think they might accept that someone, even an atheist, might think they are reasoning well when, in fact, they are not?


How do you define if they are reasoning well?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
chaendlmaier wrote:
Pinook wrote:
Someone with some credibility in the area of modern intelligence said something like, "People today are thinking for themselves much more", followed shortly after by, "Its a crime that they haven't been given the tools to do this well".
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/ar...

The actual quote would be:
"For example young people today for obvious reasons are no better informed than their parents about everyday life because they don’t read as much. They have only marginally larger vocabularies but they are better in all those areas where you have to solve problems on the spot. They are much better at lateral thinking. They are more capable of thinking outside the square; they are less respectful of authority in their thinking that is they are more likely to think for themselves. It’s tragic that we’re not giving them the tools to capitalise on this. "

Yes, I believe critical thinking is important to atheists.


Ahh this is how you define if they are reasoning well, making up their own minds rather then being told what is true.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
slatersteven wrote:
...

Ahh this is how you define if they are reasoning well, making up their own minds rather then being told what is true.
"Reasoning well" would be one sub-set of "making up their own minds rather then being told what is true". Other subsets also exist.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
...

Ahh this is how you define if they are reasoning well, making up their own minds rather then being told what is true.
"Reasoning well" would be one sub-set of "making up their own minds rather then being told what is true". Other subsets also exist.


Such as?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
slatersteven wrote:

How do you define if they are reasoning well?

Avoidance of errors of reason would be the basic criterion.

A wholey negative approach.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
slatersteven wrote:
Pinook wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
...

Ahh this is how you define if they are reasoning well, making up their own minds rather then being told what is true.
"Reasoning well" would be one sub-set of "making up their own minds rather then being told what is true". Other subsets also exist.


Such as?
Making up their own mind using fallacious reasoning and illogicality.
Making up their own mind on the basis of, "What feels good must be the reasonable viewpoint".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
slatersteven wrote:

How do you define if they are reasoning well?

Avoidance of errors of reason would be the basic criterion.

A wholey negative approach. :D


Sorry that defines the aim, not how you achive the aim. All reason is about Avoidance of errors.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
slatersteven wrote:
Pinook wrote:
slatersteven wrote:

How do you define if they are reasoning well?

Avoidance of errors of reason would be the basic criterion.

A wholey negative approach. :D


Sorry that defines the aim, not how you achive the aim. All reason is about Avoidance of errors.
It seems to define the aim and the method as well.

Consider topic.
Avoiding errors of reason, make arguments, logical sequences, or summary, about topic.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Pinook wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
...

Ahh this is how you define if they are reasoning well, making up their own minds rather then being told what is true.
"Reasoning well" would be one sub-set of "making up their own minds rather then being told what is true". Other subsets also exist.


Such as?
Making up their own mind using fallacious reasoning and illogicality.
Making up their own mind on the basis of, "What feels good must be the reasonable viewpoint".


That leads to bad places if you improperly weight short term "feels good" over long term "feels good". And that is more an area of wisdom than reason.

Recall that Dale Carnegie teaches that people decide emotionally first in most cases (the books actually say 90% of the time) and then they weight facts to match the desired out come.

And the weighting is the key challenge.

There are differences between persuading, reasoning, and arguing.


3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
To slaterstephen:
But yes you are right , it doesn't define the whole of the method.
I suppose I could make a sand-castle about a topic and not be reasoning well about that topic.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Pinook wrote:
slatersteven wrote:

How do you define if they are reasoning well?

Avoidance of errors of reason would be the basic criterion.

A wholey negative approach. :D


Sorry that defines the aim, not how you achive the aim. All reason is about Avoidance of errors.
It seems to define the aim and the method as well.

Consider topic.
Avoiding errors of reason, make arguments, logical sequences, or summary, about topic.



But without knowing the topic we cannot determine what an error of reason might be, after all an error of reason about a philosphical subject (the cat is dead) is not the same as a one about history (The batle of hastings was faught between the Vikings and a brass wind intrument).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
maxo-texas wrote:

There are differences between persuading, reasoning, and arguing.


Hopefully all three are available to a person and they know which they are engaged in.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
maxo-texas wrote:

There are differences between persuading, reasoning, and arguing.


Hopefully all three are available to a person and they know which they are engaged in.


Reasoning and reasoning (in Maxis context) are not the same.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
slatersteven wrote:


But without knowing the topic we cannot determine what an error of reason might be, after all an error of reason about a philosphical subject (the cat is dead) is not the same as a one about history (The batle of hastings was faught between the Vikings and a brass wind intrument).
You'll have to tell me more about this - naively it seems there is a vast over-lap between the reason that would be applied to both topics.
eg - falsification would be applicable to both topics, cause would precede effect, object constancy applies, words would have multiple meanings and need to be tightly confined for the purposes of argument/communication.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
slatersteven wrote:


Reasoning and reasoning (in Maxis context) are not the same.
So reasoning in SimCity is different? Or is this another Maxis?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
slatersteven wrote:


But without knowing the topic we cannot determine what an error of reason might be, after all an error of reason about a philosphical subject (the cat is dead) is not the same as a one about history (The batle of hastings was faught between the Vikings and a brass wind intrument).
You'll have to tell me more about this - naively it seems there is a vast over-lap between the reason that would be applied to both topics.
eg - falsification would be applicable to both topics, cause would precede effect, object constancy applies, words would have multiple meanings and need to be tightly confined for the purposes of argument/communication.


One does not involve falsification, just assumption (the cat is dead), the other may not involve falsification as it may be an honest mistake, or may even be a play on words for humorous purposes (which you allude to).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
slatersteven wrote:


Reasoning and reasoning (in Maxis context) are not the same.
So reasoning in SimCity is different? Or is this another Maxis?


Sorry that should have read Maxi (maxo, did it again).
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
slatersteven wrote:
Pinook wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Pinook wrote:
slatersteven wrote:

How do you define if they are reasoning well?

Avoidance of errors of reason would be the basic criterion.

A wholey negative approach. :D


Sorry that defines the aim, not how you achive the aim. All reason is about Avoidance of errors.
It seems to define the aim and the method as well.

Consider topic.
Avoiding errors of reason, make arguments, logical sequences, or summary, about topic.



But without knowing the topic we cannot determine what an error of reason might be, after all an error of reason about a philosphical subject (the cat is dead) is not the same as a one about history (The batle of hastings was faught between the Vikings and a brass wind intrument).
For activist atheists the topics are identified in their communications.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Pinook wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Pinook wrote:
slatersteven wrote:

How do you define if they are reasoning well?

Avoidance of errors of reason would be the basic criterion.

A wholey negative approach. :D


Sorry that defines the aim, not how you achive the aim. All reason is about Avoidance of errors.
It seems to define the aim and the method as well.

Consider topic.
Avoiding errors of reason, make arguments, logical sequences, or summary, about topic.



But without knowing the topic we cannot determine what an error of reason might be, after all an error of reason about a philosphical subject (the cat is dead) is not the same as a one about history (The batle of hastings was faught between the Vikings and a brass wind intrument).
For activist atheists the topics are identified in their communications.


OK, so how we have a subject (I assume toe existance of god). How would we go about a reasoned, critical analysis of this subject?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
lotus dweller
Australia
Melbourne
Victoria
flag msg tools
Avatar
slatersteven wrote:
Pinook wrote:
For activist atheists the topics are identified in their communications.


OK, so how we have a subject (I assume toe existance of god). How would we go about a reasoned, critical analysis of this subject?
Well at the moment I can state fairly unequivocally barring things such as internet hijacking and spelling errors, that you have a have expressed an assumption in the existence of God. What do you understand as the nature of God's existence? How have you come to assume the existence of God? {Here we are investigating the topic)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Pinook wrote:
I re-read a post of mine on activist atheists.
It wasn't a feel-good piece.

Then I thought, "Maybe fervent activist atheists actually DO want to use reason and critical thinking? Maybe they just haven't been taught well about such things."

Someone with some credibility in the area of modern intelligence said something like, "People today are thinking for themselves much more", followed shortly after by, "Its a crime that they haven't been given the tools to do this well".
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/allinthemind/ar...

Towards that end I'm going to run a poll - and ask all of our atheists some questions that will throw some light on how much the various atheist sub-groups value reason.

And if they value reason more than the freedom to present, as fact, whatever statement feels good.

I'm open to suggested questions and bribes.


It's good to know you're starting off from an unbiased perspective. I anticipate nothing but good results.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5  Next »  [8] | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.