|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 6, 2021 14:54:29 GMT
Innocent of critical thinking?
———————-
Innocent until proven guilty.
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jan 6, 2021 14:56:09 GMT
Innocent of critical thinking? ———————- Innocent until proven guilty. Guilty of credulity?
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Jan 6, 2021 14:57:39 GMT
You guys are smearing believers because you can. No one knows the truth about this matter. You try to pretend to know the truth by smearing believers. I never once tried to pretend to know the truth. The argument was that faith in higher power without evidence is irrational. You didn't even bother trying to prove the argument wrong.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 6, 2021 15:01:28 GMT
See, here's the problem we're having: you don't have the first clue about (ir)rationality and logic. ————- I have a Bachelors degree in Mathematical Logic, arsehole. You try to fck with people’s heads. Going after billions and billions of people who dare to disagree with you is like a dog chasing a Lamborghini. 1)"I have a Bachelors degree in Mathematical Logic, arsehole." Mathematical logic isn't really the "logic" that people are referring to here, they're refering to making sound, reasonable arguments and not use things like ad homs, strawmans, pivots, and arguments from ad pop. You know, things that you like to constantly use. 2)"You try to fck with people’s heads. Going after billions and billions of people who dare to disagree with you is like a dog chasing a Lamborghini." Not really, you do realize religion has been on the decline for quite some time right? 2) That means nothing, being that over 80 percent of the world's population is religious. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations#Adherents_in_2010 |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 1,348
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 6, 2021 15:03:58 GMT
Irrationality and logical fallacies are literally defined as methods of thought that lead to beliefs that have nothing to do with the truth of that belief. Would a logical fallacy not be where the conclusion does not follow from the premises, regardless of whether either conclusion or premises are true? So this would be rational imo: Premise 1: I believe things that make me happy Premise 2: Believing in God makes me happy Conclusion: I believe in God I think the flaw in Movieliker's thinking is he doesn't actually hold Premise 1 in all instances, only on an ad-hoc basis when it comes to God (correct me if I'm wrong here, Movieliker). |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 6, 2021 15:08:10 GMT
Irrationality and logical fallacies are literally defined as methods of thought that lead to beliefs that have nothing to do with the truth of that belief. Would a logical fallacy not be where the conclusion does not follow from the premises, regardless of whether either conclusion or premises are true? So this would be rational imo: Premise 1: I believe things that make me happy Premise 2: Believing in God makes me happy Conclusion: I believe in God I think the flaw in Movieliker's thinking is he doesn't actually hold Premise 1 in all instances, only on an ad-hoc basis when it comes to God (correct me if I'm wrong here, Movieliker). Premise 1 is too vague. What is that supposed to mean? "I believe "in" things that make me happy?" "I believe things that make me happy "exist?" |
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 1,348
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 6, 2021 15:15:49 GMT
Would a logical fallacy not be where the conclusion does not follow from the premises, regardless of whether either conclusion or premises are true? So this would be rational imo: Premise 1: I believe things that make me happy Premise 2: Believing in God makes me happy Conclusion: I believe in God I think the flaw in Movieliker's thinking is he doesn't actually hold Premise 1 in all instances, only on an ad-hoc basis when it comes to God (correct me if I'm wrong here, Movieliker). Premise 1 is too vague. What is that supposed to mean? "I believe "in" things that make me happy?" "I believe things that make me happy "exist?" Well feel free to refine it as you see fit |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 6, 2021 15:16:26 GMT
1)"I have a Bachelors degree in Mathematical Logic, arsehole." Mathematical logic isn't really the "logic" that people are referring to here, they're refering to making sound, reasonable arguments and not use things like ad homs, strawmans, pivots, and arguments from ad pop. You know, things that you like to constantly use. 2)"You try to fck with people’s heads. Going after billions and billions of people who dare to disagree with you is like a dog chasing a Lamborghini." Not really, you do realize religion has been on the decline for quite some time right? 2) That means nothing, being that over 80 percent of the world's population is religious. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations#Adherents_in_2010Religious people have a lot more children. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 6, 2021 15:17:17 GMT
1)"I have a Bachelors degree in Mathematical Logic, arsehole." Mathematical logic isn't really the "logic" that people are referring to here, they're refering to making sound, reasonable arguments and not use things like ad homs, strawmans, pivots, and arguments from ad pop. You know, things that you like to constantly use. 2)"You try to fck with people’s heads. Going after billions and billions of people who dare to disagree with you is like a dog chasing a Lamborghini." Not really, you do realize religion has been on the decline for quite some time right? 2) That means nothing, being that over 80 percent of the world's population is religious. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations#Adherents_in_2010"Religiousity" is a tricky thing to measure, many people adhere to religion mostly out of societal standards and fear of being outcasted, or even worse (particularly in certain areas of the Middle East). If I were to survey all those people using a mind reading machine and ask them if they actually believe in this stuff, the number would almost certainly go down. And BTW, religion has been on the decline quite a bit in the US: www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of-christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 6, 2021 15:18:06 GMT
Premise 1 is too vague. What is that supposed to mean? "I believe "in" things that make me happy?" "I believe things that make me happy "exist?" Well feel free to refine it as you see fit 1) I know things exist when I can prove they exist. 2) If I cannot prove things exist (and I care about them) I base belief on logic. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 6, 2021 15:19:25 GMT
Religious people have a lot more children. Well that's not a really a good argument for religion, quite the opposite, that just means the spread of religion has more to do with vast breeding and childhood indoctrination rather than actual convincing, sound arguments for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 6, 2021 15:20:52 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 6, 2021 15:23:59 GMT
That's just an argument from ad pop fallacy. The world wide spread of Christianity has more to do with centuries of European imperialism and colonialization rather than how true and valid it actually is. Also you do realize Islam is going to eventually surpass Christianity, right?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 1,348
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 6, 2021 15:24:26 GMT
Well feel free to refine it as you see fit 1) I know things exist when I can prove they exist. 2) If I cannot prove things exist (and I care about them) I base belief on logic. Could you expand on that - what is your logic as regards God? |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 6, 2021 15:25:38 GMT
That's just an argument from ad pop fallacy. The world wide spread of Christianity has more to do with centuries of European imperialism and colonialization rather than how true and valid it actually is. Also you do realize Islam is going to eventually surpass Christianity, right? That would still mean believers out number non believers. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 6, 2021 15:27:55 GMT
That's just an argument from ad pop fallacy. The world wide spread of Christianity has more to do with centuries of European imperialism and colonialization rather than how true and valid it actually is. Also you do realize Islam is going to eventually surpass Christianity, right? That would still mean believers out number non believers. Yes, an argument ad pop, I've already addressed this.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,708
Likes: 1,348
|
Post by The Lost One on Jan 6, 2021 15:28:27 GMT
Would a logical fallacy not be where the conclusion does not follow from the premises, regardless of whether either conclusion or premises are true? So this would be rational imo: Premise 1: I believe things that make me happy Premise 2: Believing in God makes me happy Conclusion: I believe in God I think the flaw in Movieliker's thinking is he doesn't actually hold Premise 1 in all instances, only on an ad-hoc basis when it comes to God (correct me if I'm wrong here, Movieliker). I don’t believe things that make me happy* Believing in God does not make me happy Therefore, I do not believe in God This is the logic theists often use to claim the reason atheists are not actually atheists because it’s about how their dislike about God rather than the so-call philosophical proofs of God. *based on the theist assumption that atheists are spirituality miserable Shouldn't your second premise be "Believing in God makes me happy" for the conclusion to follow? Assuming that's what you meant, it is a logically valid argument but it is not a sound argument as the atheist can fairly easily deny either premise. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 6, 2021 15:29:05 GMT
1) I know things exist when I can prove they exist. 2) If I cannot prove things exist (and I care about them) I base belief on logic. Could you expand on that - what is your logic as regards God? I spent time living as an Atheist, an Agnostic and a believer. Being a believer made sense to me. The other two didn't. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 6, 2021 15:30:02 GMT
That would still mean believers out number non believers. Yes, an argument ad pop, I've already addressed this. It's not an argument. It's a fact. |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 6, 2021 15:33:13 GMT
Yes, an argument ad pop, I've already addressed this. It's not an argument. It's a fact. You can still use facts in argument and it can still be fallacious, these two aren't mutually excusive. Saying "the majority of the world believes in religion" is factually true, but using it as some sort measurement for the validity of religion is fallacious (argument from ad pop)
|
|
