[split] Critical Thinking Skills

[Cyberman]

1. Language requires ethics and ideology
2. Your statement is language, and contains ethics and ideology
3. All atheist statements are language, and contain ethics and ideology
4. Atheist ethics and ideology follows from the existence of atheism and communication between atheists

Anyone want to tell him that his 1, 2 and 3 are exactly the same and exist solely to prop up his number 4?

[Joel]

1. Language requires ethics and ideology
2. Your statement is language, and contains ethics and ideology
3. All atheist statements are language, and contain ethics and ideology
4. Atheist ethics and ideology follows from the existence of atheism and communication between atheists

Anyone want to tell him that his 1, 2 and 3 are exactly the same and exist solely to prop up his number 4?

I would, but I'm automatically wrong because I haven't read a book on logic.

[jstrodel]

Read what I wrote more carefully and write more than one sentence and I will respond to you. I don't think you understood what I said. Read it more carefully and I will respond to you.

[Joel]

Read what I wrote more carefully and write more than one sentence and I will respond to you. I don't think you understood what I said. Read it more carefully and I will respond to you.

Darkstar wrote multiple sentences.
Is your math failing you?

Maybe you should read a book on it...

[jstrodel]

He wrote a bunch of one sentence replies that didn't really address what I wrote.

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

He wrote a bunch of one sentence replies that didn't really address what I wrote.

His give-a-damnmeter might be broken.

[Cyberman]

He wrote a bunch of one sentence replies that didn't really address what I wrote.

If you don't want to play anymore that's entirely up to you; but don't blame it on others, there's a good chap.

[Mister Agenda]

If you say that an argument is not fallacious because everyone uses it, that's ad populum. Are you able to accept that and move on?

Yes, if you were arguing "because everyone uses it". If you think that learning about theology or experience miracles is the same, referentially as "because everyone uses it", you are intentionally distorting language in order to make way for atheist claims.

I was referring to this statement by you: "It is not fallacious to appeal to authority, people do it all the time."

You presupposition is the proposition "The authority of theological and mystical experience is not acceptable.", and because it is not acceptable, the argument is ad populum.

No, I was just noting that "It is not fallacious to appeal to authority, people do it all the time" makes no more sense than "It is not fallacious to affirm the consequent, people do it all the time". Whether people do it all the time has nothing to do with whether it's fallacious.

But you are not honest enough to actually represent the controversial claim that appeal to theological authorities that have existed for 2000 years or appeal to the testimony of miracles is the same as ad populum.

I dare you to re-phrase that in a way that makes less sense.

An honest person would argue that point, letting his pressupositions be known, you try and conflate ad populum with religious authority, trying to reduce religious claims to the same level as a random sampling of human opinions. You can argue that is true, but the fact that you didn't argue it, you just pressed and insisted that this was the nature of ad populum, using the language of a textbook fallacy proves that you are a dishonest person, rather than an atheist trying to advance atheism.

Did you even correctly quote the statement to which you think you are responding?

If you say that an argument is not fallacious because everyone uses it, that's ad populum. Are you able to accept that and move on?

Yes, but I never said that. I wouldn't make that claim.

FFS, that's the exact same quote you were going on about above, only this time you actually got what I was saying. Perhaps you quoted that the first time by mistake? In any case, if you're going to go with "It is not fallacious to appeal to authority, people do it all the time" not being an argument ad populum, whatever you need to say to save face, I suppose.

---

There is some good stuff on the internet, I am not against it, but reading articles on the internet almost never reaches the rigor of seriously studying philosophy, which typically is done using books and pencil and paper.

---

If you don't write out what you believe in formal logic (or some similar rigorous method) and clarify your ideas on pencil and paper and think through the truth claims and read relevant criticisms, you are not doing real philosophy. You are just following someone else.

If you studied philosophy so rigorously, then why are your arguments so bad? It only makes you look worse if you studied so seriously and can't do better than you're doing. You may have learned alot about philosophy, but you don't seem to have picked up much on how to do philosophy. It's not all about the model of the syllogismobile you're driving.

---

Atheists accept people that can't argue atheism and that don't know what they are talking about, but they accept them to advance their ideology and for reasons of ideology - liberals think that it is praiseworthy to attempt to do things, even if you can't do them well.

We accept people as atheists who don't believe in God, because that's what makes a person an atheist.

I'm not a liberal. Q.E.D.

[jstrodel]

The statement "It is not fallacious to appeal to authority, people do it all the time" was not intended to be a formal argument for the veracity of the argument from authority, just a common sense assessment of the fact that the argument from authority is probably the most widely used and most reliable argument. It is true that it is not as rigorous as a careful, extended study of a particular issue, but most people do not actually do that.

"It is not fallacious to affirm the consequent, people do it all the time"

No that is different because the argument from authority is a legitimate authority that confers a weight of epistemic value on the statement if it is correctly used, as it commonly is. For instance, what 99% of doctors believe is very significant. Affirming the consequent is a common mistake, not a common argument.

The argument from authority is only fallacious when it is used fallaciously.


Why can't you just accept that you are wrong? It is not fallacious to say "My doctor told me I should get exercise to avoid heart disease". What prevents you from realizing that you are wrong? Some things are complicated, this isn't. Why can't you just admit you are wrong. The fact that you tried to compare an error to a legitimate argument shows that you are not even trying to understand the issue. Why can't you just forget about whatever you want to prove and just admit you are wrong?

[Tiberius]

I would, but I'm automatically wrong because I haven't read a book on logic.

No, you're automatically wrong because you haven't written a book on logic.