Logical Thinking

posted on August 14th, 2007, 2:06 pm

I'm always combing the internet for websites about clear thinking and skepticism, and sometimes I like to share what I find. The links below originate from sites skeptical about religion. I don't mean to burst anyone's bubble... wait, that's wrong, I do mean to burst others' bubbles! 

The following link is very... interesting for those who tend to believe in an all-knowing, all powerful God (e.g. those that believe in a God from the Abrahamic religions):

Illogical Questions:
http://www.abarnett.demon.co.uk/atheism/rock.html

It has often been said that non-theism is the default position if we are not raised in a religious environment. However, thinking logically is not our default setting, and we must be trained to think in this way, as are scientists during their doctorate studies. The following two links are excellent for learning how logic works. The second page takes a while to read but is second to none for refining one's thinking ability:

How to spot a bad argument:
http://www.paulstips.com/brainbox/pt/home.nsf/link/19062006-How-to-spot-a-bad-argument

Logical Fallacies:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html

You will find that religious people and/or creationists fall into these traps time and time again. Once you learn how to compose and analyse logical arguments it is very easy to disprove religious arguments using utterly watertight arguments. I welcome a tense, uncomfortable debate on these subjects because it helps to refine our beliefs. However, if you are religious (and even if you are not) please read at least the first link (How to spot a bad argument) before debating. I am eager to hear religious people defend their belief system. I'm ready with gloves on 

posted on August 14th, 2007, 3:03 pm

Excellent website!

But I think that the one "how to spot a bad argument" is very liberal-biased =/.

posted on August 14th, 2007, 5:40 pm

But I think that the one "how to spot a bad argument" is very liberal-biased =/.

I've never truly bought into all this stuff about "liberalism" and "conservatism", "left" and "right", "extremists" and "moderates" etc  etc. I think it's all emotionally loaded language and represents very broad generalisations. I've also noticed that these expressions are used more in the USA than here in the UK and Europe. Could you explain precisely what you mean when you say you think it is "liberally biased"?

In reality the whole point of logical analysis is to remove all the "chaff" or peripheral ideas/memes that might cause us to lean into one of the above categories. I for one find it enormously relieving not to feel lumped in with such groups. The website you mentioned uses certain examples to illustrate each fallacy, but as he says at the end it was not his intention to represent any particular viewpoint, whatever his private views.

On the other hand, my point is that cold, hard logic is more than enough to debunk religion and an omnipotent God. Whatever conclusion logic arrives at (whether "liberal-sounding" or otherwise) should be satisfactory to us, so long as it is based on sound premises.[br]Posted on: August 14, 2007, 04:23:45 pm

---

On the subject of washing away all the crud from our brains, have a look at the following video. Don't worry if you can't stand Richard Dawkins; this one is more about perception than evolution. It lasts quite a few minutes so make a cup of tea and put yer feet up:

The Universe is queerer than we suppose:
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/98

I'd like to emphasise that by thinking scientifically, we don't need to consciously "align" ourselves with some political group or otherwise, "left", "liberal" or "luddite" or whatever. By testing our arguments logically the proper conclusions arrive naturally. Scientists do not simply believe what they want to believe. They only allow concepts to enter into their sphere of understanding after rigorous testing. It is the opposite way around for most people, and this gives rise to all kinds of opinions, ideas and superstitions. The following page illustrates this nicely. Scroll down further for the usual human "sphere":

Atheist 'Metaphysics' and Religious Equivocation:
http://www.blacksunjournal.com/science/847_atheist-metaphysics-and-religious-equivocation_2007.html

[Dominus_Noctis]

posted on August 14th, 2007, 7:51 pm

Last edited by Dominus_Noctis on August 14th, 2007, 8:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Beautiful Doc 
Your arguments are very elegantly put, and thank you for using and integrating sources.
I had already bookmarked several of these articles, so it is nice to know other people do read them, and the others appear to be interesting reading as well

By the way, have you read any Jared Diamond (Guns, germs, and steel: that sort of stuff....?) or maybe E.O. Wilson's The Diversity of Life? They are some of my favorite writings, which I believe to be highly coherent and logical (but that is just an opinion ).
-dom

posted on August 14th, 2007, 8:04 pm

have you read any Jared Diamond (Guns, germs, and steal: that sort of stuff....?) or maybe E.O. Wilson's The Diversity of Life?

I haven't read anything by those writers, but I'll keep an eye out for their stuff  . I'm always on the look out for new information, mostly online to be honest. I've built up a gigantically huge number of bookmarks, so much so that I may need to write some of the URL's down just in case my PC ever dies. You never know... 

posted on August 16th, 2007, 9:17 pm

Great, the thread's gone dead!! 

I was really hoping that a Christian would prove to me there was an Omnipotent God. I'm a partial argument nerd (like a Tellarite) so I was hoping for some real roll-yer-sleeves-up debate. Aah well. I'm not disappointed really. 

Honestly I'm not disappointed. I'm not disa... disapp... pp... paaaaaaa!!! 

posted on August 16th, 2007, 9:49 pm

alrighty then, i will provide you with your fun.

God exists, because how could stuff come around that is so complex, and so highly unique, come about purely by chance.  it couldn't.  that is why god exists.  also, by proving he exists, he would negate the faith part of religion, and believing he exists without proof is part of faith, because proof makes fact, and fact is not faith, and without faith god is nothing, so if he proves he exists, he makes it fact, and fact defeats faith, and therefore god would make himself not exist.

posted on August 16th, 2007, 10:16 pm

God exists, because how could stuff come around that is so complex, and so highly unique, come about purely by chance.

Aah, you're referring to the argument from irreducible complexity. Creationists like to appeal to complexity, but introducing a Creator (especially an infinitely intelligent one) just makes the new system more complex than a universe without a God, failing "Occam's Razor" (the most scientific solution out of all choices is the simplest one). Additionally, we must then explain the origin of the much greater comlexity of God, merely relegating the question of "creation" to an earlier time. Note also that evolution does not proceed by chance, a common misconception, and a "Straw man" argument. See the TalkOrigins FAQ on evolution and chance for a brilliant explanation.

also, by proving he exists, he would negate the faith part of religion, and believing he exists without proof is part of faith

Your argument is sound, but your premise is not (laws of logic here). This depends on establishing the importance of faith by its own merits, which you have not done, so you need to explain the importance of faith and, before even that, properly define it for me so that you do not mean credulity (so much depends on definitions). If God revealed himself, it's likely 95% of people would join up to the new religion, and most religious conflict would cease immediately. I simply to mot see how "believing without proof" is a virtue. Read in my signature a quote by Thomas Jefferson about how God would, if he existed, reward thinking ability not blind acceptance. This is reasonable, is it not?

because proof makes fact

Actually, proof does not make fact. In science (in fact, in anything) you cannot ever positively prove anything, you can only disprove (Popper's falsification). If something cannot be falsified, it is not science, hence the current string theory debate because it might not be testable. On the other hand, facts are just observations, the raw data, and are meaningless without explanation. Facts occupy the lowest rung of the ladder of science, followed by laws, and then theories, right at the top. Hence the division of evolution into its "facts" and "theories" (see my earlier post in this thread).

and without faith god is nothing

Most certainly I agree with you. This also applies to Bertrand Russel's teapot orbiting Mars, and the flying spaghetti monster. They all require faith to exist. I cannot prove they exist, but I cannot either disprove they exist!! Creationists like to claim that because I cannot disprove God, it's like 50:50. In reality God is highly improbable, just like the microscopic celestial teapot.

so if he proves he exists, he makes it fact, and fact defeats faith

Well, my refined definition of "facts" notwithstanding, I agree!! May the day come soon.

and therefore god would make himself not exist.

You make it sound like his very existence depends on "faith" (by your definition). If no one had faith in Dr. Lazarus, would he cease to exist? (I hope not  ). Nope, I'd still be here at my PC, and above all I'd feel happier if people genuinely knew of my existence rather than just had "faith" in me.

posted on August 16th, 2007, 10:22 pm

Apologies, I told you to look at an earlier post in this thread when it's actually in the "Please Explain" thread started by ewm:

//www.fleetops.net/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,3/topic,3209.msg57740/topicseen,1/#new

Here I also address much about the "complexity" idea, based on the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

posted on August 16th, 2007, 11:05 pm

i jsut spooled together a bunch of arguments that i heard, and one from the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy (movie, but the book is also equally epic win)

posted on August 16th, 2007, 11:12 pm

Cool, the hitchhiker's guide is great. And there was me thinking you were deadly serious. You were joking, right?? 

Actually humour relies on logical fallacies, that's what appeals to the brain, especially a "Non-Sequitur".

That makes it all the more worrying that creationists still try these arguments, as though the "life is complex" thing has never been said before. As Richard Dawkins has pointed out, all of the creationist arguments have been stated and refuted for a hundred years since Darwin, it's just that the fundamentalists claim that the arguments are new again.

posted on August 17th, 2007, 12:01 am

The only way we can truly fix the epidemic of Lack of logic is to fix the school system because is people have the facts they will not try to answer them with "god".

posted on August 17th, 2007, 12:18 am

Quite true ewm. It seems we've always slapped the "God" label onto anything we do not understand. THe trouble is that "what we don't understand" constantly changes. As our knowledge improves, God must get more and more powerful!!! Perhaps this is why God was foiled when the enemy came at him with iron weapons in the Old Testament. He wasn't powerful enough yet! 

There may be higher beings, aliens, timelords, robots and ferengi out there, but even though they're far more likely to exist than an omnipotent God, since we cannot (yet) prove or disprove their existence, the question is not a scientific one so we should forget about such things. We carefully allow new ideas into our circle of knowledge, not the other way around (like most people).

Your absolutely right ewm. Perhaps if people studied what little scientific knowledge we do have, they would see the sheer beauty and logic of it. There's more poetry in the secrets of the universe than in any form of mysticism or religion. Perhaps then they would be satisfied the beauty of our inner circle of knowledge instead of ignoring it and pursuing meaningless questions on the outside of what we do know and what we can know.

posted on August 18th, 2007, 5:07 am

Here's the proof you seek:
God's Last Message To His Creation ... We Apologize For the Inconvenience

If you would like to see this message in person contact me... I sell green motor scooters on the way to the mountain of fire orbiting.,...

posted on August 19th, 2007, 6:33 am

truly, but the hike was well worth it