[split] Critical Thinking Skills

[jstrodel]

This is because you don't need to read a book on logic to understand logic.

There is no religion of atheism.
There is no faith involved.

This is the hypo-stasis of the uneducated atheist demographic.


1. You don't need to read a book on logic to understand logic
2. There is no religion of atheism
3. There is no faith involved

add

4. The argument from authority is invalid


Lets look at how these relate together:


1. You don't need to read a book on logic to understand logic
entails:
Some acceptable logic is not contained in books on logic
Some A is C


Lets look at this one closely:
All of what is not contained in books on logic is [informal, non-technical, non-academic, common sense] based on unproven premises from the person doing the reasoning
All C is P


2. The argument from authority is invalid
entails:
No reasoning that is valid is based on unproven premises from the person doing the reasoning
No R is P


So lets see what you have here.
1. Some A is C - Some valid reasoning is contained in informal logic
2. All C is P - All informal logic is based on unproven premises
3. All P is ~A - All unproven premises result in invalid reasoning
------------------------------- So you have
4. Some A is ~A - Some valid reasoning is invalid reasoning
(Law of non-contradiction)

That about sums your approach up. It is ok to not read a book on logic, it is ok to make blanket statements about Christianity, but some valid reasoning is invalid reasoning.

That just about sums up your whole approach to philosophy "sum valid reasoning is invalid reasoning".


The other parts about atheism not requiring faith and not being a religion cement deeper the contradiction when you consider that proposition #2 all informal logic is based on unproven premises, that the nature of trusting in unproven premises is similar to trusting in religious authorities.

It is an argument authority, that thing you hate so much which is what runs through your amateurish approach very deeply.

---

Look at how you accept Joel, even though it is clear enough that he has never read a book about logic in his life. This is a perfect example of this, the liberal crusade against reason and merit to replace it with their religion of political correctness and their faith based approach to atheist ethics and ideology.

There is no such thing as the "atheist ethics and ideology". Doesn't exist. Stop making one up every time you post.

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