[split] Critical Thinking Skills

[jstrodel]

No, there is nothing inherently wrong with it.

[Autumnlicious]

I'd consider asking why you had to mention such then.

[jstrodel]

You can't see the connection? Why do you see the world in black and white?

Either someone is a leader or they are a follower. Liberals try and have it both ways by claiming that they are simultaneously that they are weak and they are strong. Either you are strong and wise and you are a leader or you are weak and ignorant and you are a follower.

This is connect to the argument from authority. Liberals accept peoples amaturish attempts at doing serious things well. They call this mercy. It is all woven together with there irrationalist agenda that wants to exalt people based on political correctness more than other factors.

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.

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.

[Cato]

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

But baptizing infants is acceptable.

[Joel]

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.

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.

[Darkstar]

Why do you see the world in black and white?

Either someone is a leader or they are a follower. Liberals try and have it both ways by claiming that they are simultaneously that they are weak and they are strong. Either you are strong and wise and you are a leader or you are weak and ignorant and you are a follower.

Uhh...doesn't that mean you're the one who's seeing this in black and white?

This is connect to the argument from authority. Liberals accept peoples amaturish attempts at doing serious things well. They call this mercy.

What?

It is all woven together with there irrationalist agenda that wants to exalt people based on political correctness more than other factors.

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.

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.

This irony thing...are you a professional?

[CleanShavenJesus]

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.

[Cyberman]

If he didn't, he'd just be posting gibberish.

Wait, let me thnk about that some more...

[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

[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.