Reasoning Errors

[Butch5]

How are you defining worldview?

And what besides a world view is just as important?

A worldview is the beliefs and experiences that shape how one views the world

 

[variant]

You flatter yourself.
I do not pretend that I am going to get atheists to see the light. My reason for refuting the things that you say is so that poison won't go unchallenged and undermine the faith of a Christian who is bombarded from the lies of the world and starts to question the truth of the word.

You haven't really been addressing the things I say either.

Your posts are just a bunch of assertions and logical fallacies, not to mention attitude.

Your posts read like this to me:

Meow meow meow meow I'm right, and you are awful for not immediately recognizing how right I am meow meow meow.

 

[zippy2006]

"X is true because Y says it is" = fallacy.

Why? Because you say so? Do you see the irony?

An argument from authority is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.
-Wikipedia​

So, basically, you just call anything and everything that one might accept as accurate for whatever reason as being "faith".

No, I defined faith and explained why the things in question fit that definition. Try reading next time.

It's a contradiction in terms because in the context of what we are actually talking about, faith is what you require when you have no evidence.

Congratulations, you've committed "Reasoning Error #3" of the OP.

It is comical to find atheists arbitrarily defining faith as irrationality. Hey, here's an idea! Let's just define faith as, "The belief that God doesn't exist"! Brilliant! Christians have faith--Christians believe God doesn't exist! Wow! I'm so smart! I just proved that all Christians believe that God doesn't exist!

And for the record: "testmony" is the lowest possible form of evidence there is.

It's strange that you base so many of your beliefs on it, then.

 

[Khalliqa]

A worldview is the beliefs and experiences that shape how one views the world

Thank you. Can you answer the second question?

 

[bhsmte]

Why are reasoning errors important to understand and accept? Because Sometimes people base their whole lives around faulty thinking and exclude themselves from the reality of the world around them and about themselves... Sometimes people cause unnecessary and often negative division between themselves and others and/or try to create it with between external parties. So they don't grow and they prevent others from the opportunity of growth.. Having good intentions is a start but if filtered through reasoning errors can cause undue harm to self and others..

1. Circular Reasoning
- Attempts at arguments by assuming what you're trying to prove is true (common example: bible is true because the bible says it's true)

2. Faith
- Is actually confirmation bias - you want info/data to be in alignment with one's beliefs and so you interpret it as being in alignment with your beliefs (common example "If you pray for x it will occur")

3. Misleading Definitions
- Related to confirmation bias. You utilize the misuse of a definition as if it is the correct definition because it fits your belief and do not change when the correct definition is given and no other evidence or sound reason is given to change it... "Atheist means faith in the non existence of god.. " le sigh..

4. Pragmatic Fallacy - Vague often non scientific anecdotal knowledge of something "working" and assuming it will "work" for everyone else (e.g. anytime someone says I met god.. felt god.. god talked to me etc.. therefore god will talk to you etc.. and if he doesn't you're satan.. evil.. wrong.. etc.. - also see confirmation bias)

5. Placebo Effect (see confirmation bias and pragmatic fallacy) - experience something because you believe it to work "I felt god wanted me to.." "I sense god in others"

5. Appeal to Authority - An authority (often subjectively chosen as such) says something so therefore a thing is true.. e.g. Dawkins says X therefore X is what atheists believe

These are errors that everyone is susceptible to, and probably have made at some point. However, on this forum, I've noticed that they occur a lot without self reflection by those who are of faith.. There is one person who goes on threads and responds to posts by repeating the confirmation of their faith.. and while that really looks a bit kooky.. I'm reminded that in real life when confronted with opposing views.. there are many who do the same thing.. rather than consider their position may be flawed..

I'm open to correction if this is not the case but it seems to be a stumbling block in a lot of efforts at dialogue. Also open to any reasoning errors I have missed..

IMO, it all relates to each individuals personal psyche and psychological needs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why? Because you say so? Do you see the irony?

An argument from authority is a common type of argument which can be fallacious, such as when an authority is cited on a topic outside their area of expertise or when the authority cited is not a true expert.
-Wikipedia​

Don't confuse it with an argument from expertise.
When you say that "x is right because Y says so", then you are engaging in fallacious reasoning. Y saying so, is not a substitute for demonstrating that X is actually right.

Y could be wrong - no matter how much expertise he has in the field of X.

No, I defined faith and explained why the things in question fit that definition. Try reading next time.

You can define it till you are blue in the face. What matters more, is how you apply it.
If you are going to label an average person's acceptance that Australia is a real existing country as being "faith based", then that seems pretty consistent with saying that you just label any and every "belief" as being "faith based".

Congratulations, you've committed "Reasoning Error #3" of the OP.

I've explained how I derived that definition.
In religion, that's what "faith" means. Religious faith, is exactly that: a substitute for actual evidence.

Whenever I'm engaged in a discussion with a theist on a certain religious point for which I point out that there is no evidence to support it, I eventually always get the "...well... you just gotta have faith!" response.

It is comical to find atheists arbitrarily defining faith as irrationality.

It's not "arbitrarily", as I explained.
And it's not just "faith". It's "religious faith", explicitly.

It's strange that you base so many of your beliefs on it, then.

I don't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Evolution is based on the earth being billions of years old

It is not. Evolution is based on the evidence and oberved phenomena in biology.
What the model does do, is predict that the earth is old.
It is not based on the earth being old. It is based on the data of living and dead things and the biological observable processes involved.

, while there is plenty of disagreement out there on if carbon dating or whatever is reliable

There is no such disagreement within the scientific community, at all.
And the age of the earth isn't measured by carbon dating, either.

You choose to "assume" the side that says it's reliable is correct, I choose not to.

I do not. It's pretty safe to assume that atomic theory is accurate, because nuclear powerstations provide us with electricity and nukes explode.
And radiometric dating only can work if atomic theory is accurate.

If these dating methods are wrong, then our models of atoms are wrong. Then we don't know how atoms work. But if that were the case, why do nukes explode?

See, all these things (dating, nukes, powerstations, medical equipment, nuclear submarines, etc) are all practical applications of the same underlying theoretical model.

So until you can prove it is....

It is already proven beyond all reasonable doubt. And it has been for quite some time now.

we are dealing with assumptions somewhere down the line and that's just one example.

Perhaps you should try another example, because you really blew it with this one.

Prove the earth is millions of yrs old

It's ridiculously easy to prove that the earth is far older then what a fundamentalist reading of the bible would predict. One doesn't even need any advanced nuclear physics.

You can, for example, just go drill an ice core at the poles and count the winter-summer cycle layers of snow-ice. There are +600.000 of them. That alone already proves that the earth must be older then 600.000 years.

Next you could go to the mediteranian and count the layers of salt deposits. This sea has dried up several times throughout history, leaving a mark between the surface each time.
Those layers alone, already prove the earth must be older then a few millions years.

But off course, the most exact dating mechanism is by radiometric dating. And that method provides us with an age of some 4.5 billion years. There are multiple elements that allow for this dating mechanism. They are independend from one another, by they all converge on the same age.

or stop making any claims that are based on that as a fact.

It is a fact. The earth is old.

IOW, you "observe" the earth is billions of yrs old...nope you just assume it is.

The age of the earth is measured. Not assumed nore observed.
Measured.

I wasn't, I was talking about what you stated originally, something to the effect of "where did life come from?", if not exactly that.

You should read with more attention.
Here's what I said:

Comparative genomics tells us exactly where we come from (in terms of genetic lineage).

Note, the bolded part.

If you insist on hiding behind that junk as a defense

It's not junk, nore is it a defense.
A logical fallacy, requires pointing out and nothing else.

It's not a fallacy unless you can prove it is untrue

No, that's not how reasonable argumentation works.
Your argument stands or falls on its own merrits and "proving it true" is your burden.
The points your raised, were fallacious. It was a false dichotomy combined with a strawman.

You implied that the "answer" is "either god, or it came from nothing".
Those aren't the "only two" possible answers, and neither do I believe life came "from nothing".

At the very least, the logic in ID makes a lot more sense than

ID is pseudo-science that's been exposed as such on multiple occasions.
Even the cdesign proponentsists themselves, have said under oath that ID is about as scientific as astrology is.

we all just came to be for no known reason/no known start, then evolved and made ourselves from something unknown

That's not an accurate representation of evolution theory, at all.

ID sounds *much* more likely than that mess, but beware, I'm using logic there.

There is no logic in false dichotomies, strawmen and religiously based bare assertions.

And since we didn't see either one of them happen, think I'll go with what is logically sound.

When you have no answers, the only "logically sound" thing to do is say that you don't know. Not arbitrarily choose an answer that "feels good".

If you are right, I've lost nothing, If I am right, I have lost nothing, and you have lost everything. See the logic in that?

I see a species of Pascal's Wager.

 

[Moral Orel]

I see a species of Pascal's Wager.

Speciation is a myth! Kenny created that argument ex nihilo completely separately from and completely unrelated to Pascal's Wager and both arguments cohabited the internet at the same time!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Again, demonstrable to whom?

Anyone.

For a person who has encountered the Holy Spirit your contention that no such entity exists
can be nothing more than the foolish rambling of the unenlightened.

1. I didn't say that such entity does not exist.
2. replace "the Holy Spirit" in that sentence by "aliens" or "bigfoot", and see if your sentence still sounds that convincing to you

Exactly. Your position, given the existence of God, is hardly a rational position.

What existence?

The possibility that you could be wrong never comes up, does it?

I'm not the one making the claim.

That's why debating with atheists is a complete waste of time.

Because they understand how the burden of proof works?

They have an entirely different view of the world that denies most of reality.

What part of reality that demonstrably exists, am I denying exactly?

What facet of Mohammed's personality would indicate that he isn't a liar?

Thanks for proving my point that the default response to fantastical claims, is not to just believe them. Instead, the default is to be sceptical and assume more plausible explanations.

For the record: someone's personality, has no bearing on the truth of his claims.
At best, it will be a qualifier of the initial scepticism. But in the end, the truth of a claim is established through the evidence in support of it - not by the personality or even credibility of the one making the claim.

No, if it IS an angel it is a statement of fact

"if" being the operative word.
It will only be called a fact, when it can be shown to be a fact.
Until that time, it's just a bare assertion.

The craziest of which is this foolish contention that there is no God.

I never made that claim, nore do I see the point of such.
You are the one claiming that there is one. I'm just not accepting that claim as true.
Which is not the same as claiming the opposite.

And you wonder why we consider your beliefs foolishness.

What beliefs?

What makes you think I haven't.

Everything you say on this topic.

No, they're scared to death they might learn that God is real.

If you say so. That's news to me though. Which is strange, because I actually am an atheist.

Humans have a known beginning and a provable starting point; they were born.

Does this mean that you acknowledge my point on the matter?

What is the starting point of a rock? How did it originate? When did it originate? Not knowing the how, you cannot determine precisely when. You can only guess.

Perhaps you should read up a bit on chemistry and geology.

Wrong is wrong. Being closer to right is still wrong.

Really?
So to you, estimating a reasonable number of marbles in a jar, is "equally wrong" to estimating that there are an obviously impossible number of marbles in said jar?

If a lottery pays out only for the correct numbers getting close means nothing.

True. But completely irrelevant to the point being made.
The fact remains that claims have various degrees of accuracy.
Estimating that someone is 23 years old while the person is really 22, is not "equally wrong" to claiming that the person is 89.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It is not. Evolution is based on the evidence and oberved phenomena in biology.
What the model does do, is predict that the earth is old.
It is not based on the earth being old. It is based on the data of living and dead things and the biological observable processes involved

It is. Evolution depends on it.

There is no such disagreement within the scientific community, at all.
And the age of the earth isn't measured by carbon dating, either.

This is where I've seen flat out lies before. Your idea of the scientific community is one that agrees with your side, otherwise, to you, it is not a Scientific community. All I can really say is get over yourself....there are other sides on the planet and it doesn't revolve around just your side just because you say it does. You're making it tough to take you seriously.

Wish I had the time for the "yes it is" or the "no it is nots" required for most of what follows in your post. Maybe I'll get to it later.

 

[bhsmte]

LOL

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It is. Evolution depends on it.

It is not. In fact, in Darwin's day they were pretty clueless about the earth's age.
How could evolution theory, an idea in biology, be "based" on data of geology that wasn't even known at the time?

An sufficiently old earth was predicted by evolution theory. Evolution as a scientific model was not based on the idea of an old earth. It was based on the data of biology.

When, much later, the age of the earth was finally discovered to be more then 4 billion years old, it matched the prediction of evolution theory. It didn't have to, mind you.
If geologists would have discovered that it was only 50.000 years old for example, then we would have known that either biology or geology would have to be wrong.

But instead, the findings of both independend fields, converged on the same answer.
And not just on the age of the earth of course. The geological column and the dating thereof is also a part of the independent field of geology.

The fossils therein is in turn data for biology. And again, both the layering as well as the contents thereof, match exactly what we would expect if our models of the earth's age and life's history are accurate.

This is where I've seen flat out lies before. Your idea of the scientific community is one that agrees with your side, otherwise, to you, it is not a Scientific community.

No. The scientific community, is that community wich is engaged in science (ie: does research, publishes papers, reviews the work of others and otherwise engages in the community like by attending scientific symposiums etc).

And once again, there is no disagreement among the community that carbon dating is a reliable method of determining ages upto 50.000 years old - assuming one knows what one is doing.

It's rather easy to test as well. A proper sample ("proper", as in: an object that fits the criteria for being dateable through carbon dating) given to several independend labs around the world, will be dated about the same age in all labs.

All I can really say is get over yourself....there are other sides on the planet

Not all sides are equal.
Not all sides are worth listening too.

I'm sure plenty of people have opinions about plenty of things. Why should I bother caring about all those opinions?

and it doesn't revolve around just your side just because you say it does.

It's not "my side" nor am I "just saying so".
I side with the side that has the evidence and engages in the science.

Wish I had the time for the "yes it is" or the "no it is nots" required for most of what follows in your post. Maybe I'll get to it later.

That's actually quite funny, considering that you actively ignored every single point I raised in the post that you are responding to.

 

[Kenny'sID]

It is not. In fact, in Darwin's day they were pretty clueless about the earth's age.
How could evolution theory, an idea in biology, be "based" on data of geology that wasn't even known at the time?



An sufficiently old earth was predicted by evolution theory. Evolution as a scientific model was not based on the idea of an old earth. It was based on the data of biology.

When, much later, the age of the earth was finally discovered to be more then 4 billion years old, it matched the prediction of evolution theory. It didn't have to, mind you.
If geologists would have discovered that it was only 50.000 years old for example, then we would have known that either biology or geology would have to be wrong.

But instead, the findings of both independend fields, converged on the same answer.
And not just on the age of the earth of course. The geological column and the dating thereof is also a part of the independent field of geology.

The fossils therein is in turn data for biology. And again, both the layering as well as the contents thereof, match exactly what we would expect if our models of the earth's age and life's history are accurate.

I think I already disagreed with you there.

Not all sides are worth listening too.

Then you admit there are two sides after saying there is only one actual community. Many don't thing the concept of God is worth listening too, and that's to say how worthless your comment is.

I side with the side that has the evidence and engages in the science.

There you go again, acting like those who disagree with your science, don't actually engage in science. Do you know how ridiculous this stuff that you have to be making up on the spot, sounds?

That's actually quite funny, considering that you actively ignored every single point I raised in the post that you are responding to.

That is not a fact. It's easy to see how the Atheist Scientist might draw the conclusions they do, I mean is making things up as much a part of how they deal with science too.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

There you go again, acting like those who disagree with your science, don't actually engage in science. Do you know how ridiculous this stuff that you have to be making up on the spot, sounds?

If you'd like to know about how actual science works, you should read this article:
Intelligent Design: Is it scientific?

Because if you continue trying to argue as fallaciously as you are, no unbeliever need listen to it. And since the name of this particular board is "Christian Apologetics", it seems like the most appropriate response from a Christian would be something that's somewhat logical.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think I already disagreed with you there.

You can disagree all you want off course. You can stuff your ears and scream "lalala - can't hear you" till you are blue in the face.

But the simple fact is that it is completely absurd and non-sensical to state that evolution theory was based on an old earth... how could that be the case, if the age of the earth wasn't even known at that time???

Then you admit there are two sides after saying there is only one actual community.

There are an infinite amount of sides, because you can make an inifinite amount of different claims about a single thing - only limited by your imagination.

But, as said, not all those sides are worth listening to.

Unfalsifiable claims are infinite in number and can't be differentiated from true or false claims. They are entirely useless and meaningless. It is not worth listening to.

Yes, there is only one scientific community. It is made up of the people who actually do science.

There you go again, acting like those who disagree with your science, don't actually engage in science.

It's not "my" science. It's just science.
When hindu's in India wish to shoot a satellite into orbit, they use the exact same physics as Americans, Iranians, Russians, Europeans,...

Science is just science.

Having said that... Science is pretty straightforward. And yes, the methodology has criteria. Failing to work within the boundaries of those criteria, means you stop doing proper science.

Do you know how ridiculous this stuff that you have to be making up on the spot, sounds?

What am I "making up on the spot", exactly?

That is not a fact.

Except that it is. You completely ignored, for example, my rebuttal to your silly claim that "evolution is based on an old earth", while the age of the earth wasn't even known at the time, nore did they have the required knowledge to properly measure the age of the earth.

How can you base an idea on things that aren't known?

It's easy to see how the Atheist Scientist might draw the conclusions they do, I mean is making things up as much a part of how they deal with science too.

There's no such thing as "atheist" or "theist" science either.

Science is just science. Don't blame science that no gods or supernatural shenannigans show up in laboratories or in any real world observations.

 

[Butch5]

Thank you. Can you answer the second question?

I'm not sure what you mean by the second question. One's world view influences one's actions and thoughts. So, it seems that anything else would be influenced by that worldview.