[split] Critical Thinking Skills

[jstrodel]

Why must I have read a book?

Who cares if you are spouting lies and misinformation?

I am condescending because you are talking about something serious, whether God exists, whether there is any objective difference between murder and charity, whether there is life after death, whether there is any reason people are bound to obey the law, etc.

You are talking about very serious things, but you have never read a book on logic in your life. You couldn't name 10 logicians off the top of your head. You don't know what you are talking about.

So, yes, I am being condescending, because you are decieving others and hurting other people with your ignorance and pride.

[Joel]

Why must I have read a book?

Who cares if you are spouting lies and misinformation?

We all care.
That's why we're having this discussion: to oust the lies and misinformation.

Again, I ask both questions again.

1) Why must I have read a book?
2) Why don't you just answer the question?

That's grossly offensive.
You provide no reason to believe you, but plenty not to believe you.
Nobody gives a shit about what logicians we can name.

I cannot name 10 logicians. I can't name 5, even. But so what? Why must I need to?

If that makes me false in everything I say, then alright.

God is real.

Is that deceitful just because I haven't read a book? Or because I don't know a few names?

[jstrodel]

Because if you don't study, you won't understand logic, epistemology or fallacy theory. Most of the people in this board think that an informal understanding of fallacy theory is all they need to answer lifes most important questions. That shows what is inside them, a deep desire to avoid religious obligation and very little amount of zeal for the truth, which would carry them to understand the origin of the labels they so proudly use and the problems associated with them, instead of just cut and pasting things they don't understand, from a list of fallacies they read on a website that they spent less than 10 hours studying.


Do yourself a favor and buy this, and subject all your false claims to real philosophical methods, not those that have been craftily devised by atheists to disprove Christianity.
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Logic...copi+logic

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

Because if you don't study, you won't understand logic, epistemology or fallacy theory.

There's something called the internet. You're on it right now. On the internet is a pretty much infinite amount of information. One does not need to read a book to become educated on any subject.

[jstrodel]

You can't understand philosophy through spending 100 hours on different websites. You are a fool if you think that. No one becomes serious about philosophy from reading about stuff on the internet. There has never been and never will be a single tenured philosopher anywhere who become a philosopher through reading informal articles about fallacies on the internet.


You have to put the time into it if you want to understand it. Buy a bunch of serious books. Take it seriously. Or just shut up. Do one or the other, because you are just misleading people when you don't take it seriously.

Philosophy is hard. It is not like applying a bunch of fallacy labels on a forum. Real philosophy takes years to learn.

[Joel]

You can't understand philosophy through spending 100 hours on different websites. You are a fool if you think that. No one becomes serious about philosophy from reading about stuff on the internet. There has never been and never will be a single tenured philosopher anywhere who become a philosopher through reading informal articles about fallacies on the internet.

Then how did philosophy start?
There were no philosophy books before philosophy.

[jstrodel]

They had other serious forms of learning. Aristotle was schooled in Plato's school. The Pythagoreans had their own school. The Muslims and the Thomists studied in universities. People took it seriously.

It is obviously not the concept of a book, it is the seriousness. Books are serious, the internet isn't serious. Wikipedia isn't serious. Harvard U Press is serious (whatever you think of Harvard, I don't like them, but it is serious). Science is serious. The internet is not an rigorous learning community, some websites are good for philosophy, but it is not the same as reading books.

If you think so, it is because you don't know very much about philosophy (but don't care if you are making mistakes about the most serious issues in life). Well, whatever, pride comes before destruction. You are warned.

[Joel]

They had other serious forms of learning. Aristotle was schooled in Plato's school. The pythagoreens had their own school. The muslims and the thomists studied in universities. People took it seriously.

It is obviously not the concept of a book, it is the seriousness. Books are serious, the internet isn't serious. Wikipedia isn't serious. Harvard U Press is serious (whatever you think of Harvard, I don't like them, but it is serious).

So, does it count when people read eBooks? Or books online?

[jstrodel]

That is different. How many eBooks on logic have you read?

[Joel]

That is different. How many eBooks on logic have you read?

Again, why does it matter and why is it different?