Post-modern philosophy denies absolutes — reality isn’t absolute, only what popular opinion or someone believes at the time. Think that’s absurd? The current occupant of the White House believes firmly in post-modern philosophy, admitting in a speech on the Senate floor concerning the Supreme Court he holds firmly to post-modern philosophy.
Al Stefanelli (Georgia State Director of American Atheists) sure stepped in it big time, and displayed for all the world atheism’s complete lack of understanding logic and critical thinking.
Sadly today logic is no longer taught in our failed schools, which turn out millions of people who can’t analyze an argument logically. This leads to absurd contradictions like atheism or other funny-but-sad ideas.
The politically correct crowd likes to boast about tolerance and acceptance of others, but if you’ve ever disagreed with them you’ll quickly discover how far their intolerance will go to defend their anti-definition of tolerance. Sound bizarre? Are you asking yourself who could be that illogical? Consider the following quote from a so-called “tolerant” person:
Everyone has bias. The trick is not letting those ideas prevent you from seeing the truth, or modifying your position when new facts dictate. Confirmation bias creeps in when — instead of seeing the facts — you see everything as proof of your position.
Global warming disciples use arguments on a shaky logical foundation. Examine a few and you’ll quickly spot them.
We’ll examine a few logical errors of some global warming arguments. The scientific ones we’ll leave for another time, but many of those share an equally shaky foundation. In short, the global warming crowd frequently uses logical errors in an attempt to “prove” their point, but it demonstrates they can’t form an argument logically or use critical thinking.
From advertising to politics to everyday conversation, many people lack the ability to spot logical errors. This week we’ll cover one of the more common mistakes, the argument from authority.
Chuck Missler says never underestimate a person’s ability to rationalize, or justify the unjustifiable, or attempt (poorly) to reconcile contradictory beliefs.
Acceptability may not depend on some standard, but rather the subject of the action. Double standards arrive due to an application of dialectic thought, more commonly known as group-think. If the group thinks it’s bad, it’s bad, and if good, it’s good, failing to consider absolute standards of morality.
In other words, even among those calling themselves “Christians”, critical thinking skills and logic frequently lack, instead following the herd.
When talking to evolutionists (or others holding to a rigid dogma without justification, like atheists), it’s quite common to receive clichéd thinking and logical errors, in place of meaningful discussion. For example, consider the following comment left on an article we had explaining an error in analyzing probability:
Christians are warned in the Bible to do their own homework and check things out for themselves. Be a Berean, as in Acts 17. Many dangers exist for those failing to perform their own research, but one of the more common arises as the “argument from authority” error, frequently used in advertising as you see a doctor promoting a car or something else (Remember the Camel ads? “What cigarette do you smoke, Doctor?” More Doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette). Obviously, a doctor doesn’t necessarily have any more expertise in automotive matters than anyone else. Advertising sometimes seeks to make a subtle connection between the two, “trust me, I’m a doctor”.
Christians (and it’s good advice for everyone else) are called to be skeptical—several places in the Bible it states check things out for yourself and don’t believe something just because it came from an “authoritative” source; many of those sources turn out to be false. Do your homework, or as Jesus said “Take heed that no one deceive you”.
Atheists frequently don’t recognize contradictions while attempting to defend the logical inconsistencies created by atheism. Atheists claim there is no God; after the statement is made (usually as an unproven “fact”), and the logical contradictions of that statement are pointed out to them, instead of admitting they made an error they go to great lengths to disavow the problem.
Errors in logic must be avoided if you wish to have an open mind and use critical thinking. This of course means you must be open to all possibilities, forming opinions based on logic and analysis instead of preconceived ideas; confirmation bias can arise during analysis by making assumptions based on what you want to see, instead of evidence and logical deduction.
Carl Sagan provides many quotes loved by both atheists and evolutionists in an attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of God and religion in general. Here’s a popular Sagan quote:
You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief isn’t based on evidence, it’s based on a deep seated need to believe. Carl Sagan
Not everyone with the title “pastor” behind their name is trustworthy. That should be obvious, but many fall victim to the “appeal to authority” problem, where someone appearing as an authority has their beliefs accepted without challenge.
Previously we discussed Dawkins’ view of shifting atheist zeitgeist morality — the idea culture shapes morals, and who can say anything is right or wrong? Dawkins even goes so far as to claim nobody can state Hitler was wrong — after all, morality comes from shifting society, not an absolute standard. Dawkins’ idea of morality is absurd, of course, but more absurd when atheists don’t even believe or follow what they say — consider the following Rasmussen poll:
In the atheism verses God debate, one thorny issue always remains for the atheist — how does the atheist define morality (right and wrong)? Without absolute standards, where does right and wrong come from? Consider the atheist’s favorite spokesman Richard Dawkins speaking on the question of morality.
You have no evidence for an afterlife, So by logic means there is no afterlife.
Statements along these lines frequently appear. But they’re wrong logically, and quite simple to show the logical error of. Until the 1900’s we had no evidence for quantum mechanics or photons — does that mean they didn’t exist until 1900?
In a previous article on the problem of evil we discussed the hubris of the person attempting to attribute to themselves all knowledge — as if they don’t understand why God acts the way He does, it doesn’t make any sense at all. Naturally, the only way that logic works is if the person possesses all knowledge themselves — making themselves into a sort of Deity. And the last thing the atheist wants to do is acknowledge the existence of God.
Devotees of evolutionary dogma face a problem as it’s widely accepted neither the time the universe has existed (let’s just use 15 billion years) nor the amount of matter in the universe allow for random mutations to produce what surrounds us. So what’s a disciple of evolution to do? Declare the non-randomness of evolution, as atheist Richard Dawkins does — only one teeny tiny problem, which we’ll get to after the quote.
Atheists try to escape the absurdity of their position (the only way you can say God doesn’t exist is by having all knowledge, since if you don’t God can exist outside your knowledge) by silly arguments, some even go so far to attempt proof God doesn’t exist. But those attempts always fail as they fall into the same logical problem.
We’ve referred to doublethink several times, but many have asked what exactly it consists of. Surely it doesn’t really exist, as Orwell wrote a fictionalized account of a future government in “1984”. No, it really exists — consider an editorial by the Register-Guard, noting the Oregon Legislature just provided a wonderful example of Doublethink. But first, allow Orwell himself to provide the definition.
We’ve mentioned previously a book by a “scholar” utterly lacking basic logical and Biblical analysis as a warning not to depend on Phd’s and other accolades to give credibility to some theory. Another book by that “renowned Bible scholar” has come under fire … by an atheist desperately trying to show no God exists, yet we’ll agree with the atheist the “renowned Bible scholar” uses bogus “scholarship”, in spite of their title.
We’ve discussed in the past pseudo-scholarship — those with Ph’d’s and other titles claiming to be knowledgeable, yet making basic errors in deduction, reason and logic. Many of those “scholars” make absurd errors, all while sounding scholarly. One reason for those errors stems from didactic verses dialectic thought. Stay with us for a bit as we discuss some terms, but you’ll quickly see how these conflicting ideas cause considerable problems for the church, as well as the world at large.
We received an email recently comparing two religions and asking if God was the same, why the different messages (specifically about who Jesus is). But implicit in the question is one assumption: religions speak of the same god, and in spite of differences, have the same core foundation.
Want new posts delivered to your inbox? Enter your email address to get FREE emailed updates!
Other ways to stay current:
