[split] Critical Thinking Skills

[Darkstar]

There is so much flawed logic in the below that it made me cringe. I almost don't want to respond to it...
Well, here goes:

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

The above is untrue in the way that you argue it. If you mean "some acceptable logic is absent from books on logic" (which is what you expand this to later) that is not the same as what is written. What #1 entails is that there are sources from which acceptable logic can be found other than books on logic.

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

Such as inductive reasoning? These can be demonstrated to be very probable, but not technically 100% proven.

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

...huh? What does that have to do with the argument from authority? The only unproven premise the argument from authority relies upon is that being in an important position automatically makes you right. Inductive reasoning still relies on technically unproven premises, but that does not make it fallacious unless the premises are fallacious/more likely to be false than true.

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.

There is a difference between "technically unproven, but extremely likely" and "ridiculous, for which there is no evidence" premises. The premises of inductive reasoning still require evidence for their support. Formal logic can only be done when the premises are absolute or self-evident.

1. Language requires ethics and ideology

Huh?

2. Your statement is language, and contains ethics and ideology

What?

3. All atheist statements are language, and contain ethics and ideology

Atheist statements?

4. Atheist ethics and ideology follows from the existence of atheism and communication between atheists

And what about nihilist ideologies? Do I have to point out that there is no consensus on ethics or ideologies among atheists? They communicate, sure, but we aren't a hive mind.