Eileen D. Gambrill wrote:

I go out of my way not to use the word "proven" since I am not a justificationist--I don't think anything is "proven." Belief in "proof" reflects a justificationary approach to knowledge in which certainty is assumed to be possible. I do not think knowledge can be gained by piling up observations, and I do not think that there is certain knowledge; indeed history illustrates this (e.g., see Popper, 1972).

Frank wrote:

If you want to defend TH that is fine, but remember he views atheists as prone to Nazism and bigotry and it shows in his posts.

I will defend anyone who is truly searching for credible information and purposeful knowledge. How that anyone decides to interpret that information and how that knowledge is used can be criticized.

Frank wrote:

Look back through the posts… no atheists here have made any claims that they cannot back up…

I have read the introductory quote from, yes my aunt Eileen several times. She states that there is no certain knowledge. Certain knowledge, in an ever changing world, with debates and discussions with people of varying perspectives, varying degrees of what is considered truth, there is no certain knowledge. There are only interpretations, there are only opinions. Critical thinking is a tool in which to make informed discissions and opinions. With this said, your above quote is logical, opinions are the culmination of collecting information and processing that information.

Frank wrote:

In my opinion the debate is why the religious believe these ridiculous claims without evidence when they normally require evidence for other beliefs of such importance.

They have a need for it. It supplies comfort and hope. Prayers over a dying loved one and believing something bigger than themselves may hear a plea, may ease a situation where they have no control, or a situation that is unbearable is irresistible to many, even to those who require proof in other areas. Wishful thinking, or I guess I should say magical thinking. If you can't see the wires and the mirrors, the illusion appears real.

Frank wrote:

You may ignore it if you wish, but I will defend my integrity and way of thinking as acceptable.

My aunt Eileen defends it too!

When have I ever ignored you?

Thank you for the welcome Thomas. I guess I could have been more articulate in my posting, as I was thinking of libraries in a broader, and slightly more abstract sense. I see them as symbolic of a desire for learning and understanding life and the world around us in a deeper sense. Certainly libraries, whether online or the more traditional type, are important for this, but so are other institutions. Similar to Poettess’ comment, I am also lucky in this part of the world to have access to big libraries that offer many services, including Internet resources, at no cost to the individual.

Poetess, thank you for posting this helpful link on critical thinking:

http://www.accd.edu/sac/history/keller/ACCDitg/SSCT.htm
WHAT IS CRITICAL THINKING?

It is further supporting evidence for my view that critical thinking is emotional thinking for liberal ends. Note the "critical thinking exercise" at the bottom of the webpage. The intent of these statements is to minimize black misconduct during so-called Reconstruction. Note the absurdity of statement 7: "The New York City Tweed Ring probably made off with more money that all the southern thieves, black and white, combined." There was far more money in New York City than in all of the deliberately impoverished South, and stealing from the rich is less painful to them than stealing from the poor. The statement is a fact but misleading.

This webpage also explains why modern-day atheists, trained in critical thinking and supposing it to be an improvement on traditional logic, are so oblivious to their fallacy-riddled thinking. The word "fallacy" does not occur in it. Judging from the conduct of BookTalk atheists, a fallacy to them is a handy debating technique. Clearly I have much to do, but they may be beyond my help

Tom

Suzanne: "If critical thinking is truly the topic, adding information from any credible source would enhance the conversation."

Well, as I hinted at before, I don't think it was truly the topic. Thomas expressed interest in it during his recent campaign against atheism:

Tom: "Critical Thinking is the atheist's method of thought, and I'd like to know what it is and where it came from -- the better to deal with the odd thinking of atheists at BookTalk"

In the end I hope honesty would win. I immensely enjoy reading and learning about all things cognitive. The Nizkor site is new to me, though Wikipedia has all the same information. Perhaps some of us would be willing to read a book regarding critical thinking?

Interbane wrote:In the end I hope honesty would win.

I hope so too, Interbane, but fallacious thinking isn't a matter of character. Few, outside politics, employ fallacies with conscious malice, but passion and partial and misleading information make us deceive ourselves.

Tom

TH: "I hope so too, Interbane, but fallacious thinking isn't a matter of character."

I agree and am always wary of my own faults. Sometimes when I'm not sure of a post, I'll save it to my computer and open it a day later to get a fresh look at it. Of course, my ruts have been dug like anyone else, so there are some things I'll inevitably be blind to. If you ever do see me commit a fallacy please let me know. Many of your recent posts seemed spiteful in general and not in detail, so the detail would be appreciated.

Interbane wrote:Many of your recent posts seemed spiteful . . .

I have wondered, Interbane, if you didn't identify me with your want-to-be father-in-law?

Suzanne
I will defend anyone who is truly searching for credible information and purposeful knowledge. How that anyone decides to interpret that information and how that knowledge is used can be criticized.

The problem here is that TH is not searching for credible sources… he will use anything that supports his already solidified viewpoint no matter how extreme or inapplicable… In this case he is trying to take the best form of thinking available to humans and discredit it as purposeful propaganda and emotional thinking… why?

Because it makes religious beliefs look irrational.

Suzanne
They have a need for it. It supplies comfort and hope. Prayers over a dying loved one and believing something bigger than themselves may hear a plea, may ease a situation where they have no control, or a situation that is unbearable is irresistible to many, even to those who require proof in other areas.

Those of us that never had those beliefs don’t need them… maybe those people just think they need those beliefs because they were told that they do?

Maybe those beliefs are like a wheelchair that was not really needed at first, but because it was used exclusively for years the person’s legs weakened and now they really do need it… but they would have led a healthier and happier life and been better off without it in the first place.

Have you ever considered this?

Suzanne
When have I ever ignored you?

I was not suggesting that you were ignoring me; I was suggesting that you were ignoring TH’s blatant bigotry and narrow-minded research.

Later

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

What about us atheists that are not liberal?

And what would you have us use in place of logic and critical thinking?

Yes these two things are compatible, and work best when used together. In fact neither is complete without the other.

Both require subjective rational thought and fairness to all credible data.

I suppose that you would have us use the opposite of rational/critical thought which would look similar to this…

1. Use only one perspective, (the one that best suits your personal belief)

2. Don’t bother thinking carefully…

3. Don’t bother being fair, (the people who disagree with you are Nazis anyway!)

4. Don’t be fair to opposing views, (they might upset you.)

5. Never question the reliability of your sources or of the material that supports your view!

6. Never look to other successful models of thought like science, (those will only make your head hurt!)

7. Do not be clear about your definitions or critical about your own data, (you know you are correct after all.)

8. Do not be fair minded or worry about accurate results, (those commitments only weaken your resolve.)

This seems to be your method of thinking TH… is this the method you would have people use to determine the empirical nature of subjects?

Later

Thomas Hood wrote:

Poetess, thank you for posting this helpful link on critical thinking:

http://www.accd.edu/sac/history/keller/ACCDitg/SSCT.htm
WHAT IS CRITICAL THINKING?

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

Maybe more attention should be spent on the section regarding critcal reading.