Critical thinking vs. Monkey poop fights.

As I’ve seen monkeys in the zoo have poop fights that were more organized and better thought out than the arguments presented in Spirituality, I feel that some lessons in critical thinking are in order.

First, the most blatant violation spewed out into the Spirituality forum is the fallacy of circular reasoning. Quite simply, you monkeys frequently assume to be true what you are supposed to be proving. Circular reasoning, basically relies on reiteration of the single premise as its conclusion.

While similar in premise to deductive reasoning, the conclusion is based on a single premise or assumption. It should be intrinsically obvious to even the most poop covered monkey that for the conclusion in a deductive argument to be valid it must be based on series of valid premises.

Unfortunately, I suspect that, despite this lesson, poop of all types and consitencies will continue to be thrown and all the monkeys will be left to wallow in their own filth.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
As I’ve seen monkeys in the zoo have poop fights that were more organized and better thought out than the arguments presented in Spirituality, I feel that some lessons in critical thinking are in order.

First, the most blatant violation spewed out into the Spirituality forum is the fallacy of circular reasoning. Quite simply, you monkeys frequentl ...[text shortened]... encies will continue to be thrown and all the monkeys will be left to wallow in their own filth.

I agree with you in many ways. I found that when I first started out posting I was determined to avoid the poop , but as you get into it there is so much poop flying around that you end up getting tempted to throw some yourself. I have probably ended up doing some subtle poop throwing myself but I don't think I'm in the same league as some of these guys! The hardest part is that most of us end up arguing at cross purposes and don't understand what questions are being asked of us. I made the mistake of equating Atheism with Nihilism when it doesn't necessarily follow for some people (it still does for me however) . Others have, I feel not really grasped the issue around morality , probably the question itself is not really understood.

We all need to avoid making monkeys of ourselves. If you would like a quiet debate away from the monkey house let me know. I'll share my banana with you.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
As I’ve seen monkeys in the zoo have poop fights that were more organized and better thought out than the arguments presented in Spirituality, I feel that some lessons in critical thinking are in order.

First, the most blatant violation spewed out into the Spirituality forum is the fallacy of circular reasoning. Quite simply, you monkeys frequentl ...[text shortened]... encies will continue to be thrown and all the monkeys will be left to wallow in their own filth.

The problem is that deductive reasoning is of limited use in comprehending the metaphysical. You're bound to be disappointed if you expect deduction to solve much here. God, or lack of god, can't be proven, so we all must resort to arguing that one or the other is more likely to be the case.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
The problem is that deductive reasoning is of limited use in comprehending the metaphysical. You're bound to be disappointed if you expect deduction to solve much here. God, or lack of god, can't be proven, so we all must resort to arguing that one or the other is more likely to be the case.

But, inductive reasoning doesn't prove anything either.

All we can say is that we know what we know, and we think X is likely. But, that's not saying much at all.

Originally posted by Tetsujin
But, inductive reasoning doesn't [b]prove anything either.

All we can say is that we know what we know, and we think X is likely. But, that's not saying much at all.[/b]

Please note that I said that god, or lack of god, can't be proven.

I completely agree with your last two sentences.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
As I’ve seen monkeys in the zoo have poop fights that were more organized and better thought out than the arguments presented in Spirituality, I feel that some lessons in critical thinking are in order.

First, the most blatant violation spewed out into the Spirituality forum is the fallacy of circular reasoning. Quite simply, you monkeys frequentl ...[text shortened]... encies will continue to be thrown and all the monkeys will be left to wallow in their own filth.

Here's how I see the problem. In contrast to reasonable discourse, having an enjoyable poop fight does not require an able partner.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Here's how I see the problem. In contrast to reasonable discourse, having an enjoyable poop fight does not require an able partner.

Just one word to say to that:

DUCK!!!!


P.S. What's this silliness about being a temp socialist?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Here's how I see the problem. In contrast to reasonable discourse, having an enjoyable poop fight does not require an able partner.

But it does postulate a well-supplied one.

Originally posted by Hand of Hecate
As I’ve seen monkeys in the zoo have poop fights that were more organized and better thought out than the arguments presented in Spirituality, I feel that some lessons in critical thinking are in order.

First, the most blatant violation spewed out into the Spirituality forum is the fallacy of circular reasoning. Quite simply, you monkeys frequentl ...[text shortened]... encies will continue to be thrown and all the monkeys will be left to wallow in their own filth.

proof of Heaven/Hell is found when you die. feel free to prove it?

*Throwing feces *

Originally posted by Kaboooomba
proof of Heaven/Hell is found when you die. feel free to prove it?

Who said it was lost?

Originally posted by telerion



P.S. What's this silliness about being a temp socialist?

I have been assigned to affirm a socialist position in defense of my Debates Championship against royalchicken. It's really going to suck a big one.

Originally posted by aspviper666
*Throwing feces *

no no pumpkin pie. how can we prove something we find after death? is this possible... no. so the objective way of a non-christian is to dismiss what a Christian believes to be true. a boundry which can never be crossed... unless.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I have been assigned to affirm a socialist position in defense of my Debates Championship against royalchicken. It's really going to suck a big one.

Well, at least it's not totally indefensible like say . . . the Empty Tomb.

Originally posted by Kaboooomba
no no pumpkin pie. how can we prove something we find after death? is this possible... no. so the objective way of a non-christian is to dismiss what a Christian believes to be true. a boundry which can never be crossed... unless.

*feces splattering*