Question

...
Kris

What's wrong with this logic?

Kris, we are not a legalistic church. However, it's important to obey all of God's commandments and not succumb to worldly vices. Kris, you don't want to be disobedient do you? 

asked on Friday, Dec 27, 2024 01:14:37 PM by Kris

Top Categories Suggested by Community

Comments

Want to get notified of all questions as they are asked? Update your mail preferences and turn on "Instant Notification."

Eat Meat... Or Don't.

Roughly 95% of Americans don’t appear to have an ethical problem with animals being killed for food, yet all of us would have a serious problem with humans being killed for food. What does an animal lack that a human has that justifies killing the animal for food but not the human?

As you start to list properties that the animal lacks to justify eating them, you begin to realize that some humans also lack those properties, yet we don’t eat those humans. Is this logical proof that killing and eating animals for food is immoral? Don’t put away your steak knife just yet.

In Eat Meat… Or Don’t, we examine the moral arguments for and against eating meat with both philosophical and scientific rigor. This book is not about pushing some ideological agenda; it’s ultimately a book about critical thinking.

Get 20% off this book and all Bo's books*. Use the promotion code: websiteusers

* This is for the author's bookstore only. Applies to autographed hardcover, audiobook, and ebook.

Get the Book

Answers

...
Dr. Richard
1

Check your premises. You are accepting unproven premises that can, and usually does, lead to a logically valid but untrue conclusion. 

The goal of the science of thinking is to learn if the subject in question is true or false. What is “true?” The Oxford Dictionary says: “In accordance with fact or reality.” Restated: truth is the correct identification of a fact of reality.

To correctly identify a particular fact requires rules of thought to include what is correct and exclude what is incorrect. The term “logical fallacy” refers to making an error in the reasoning process. It is crucial to understand logical fallacies so we can avoid them when seeking the truth.

Start with the premises to see if they are correct. That means you must define your terms. In this case, to say “it’s important to obey all of God’s commandments,” one must intelligibly define the god in question. Then, state the commandments and the source of those commandments. When dealing with an Apologist, you’ll never get past step one.

answered on Friday, Dec 27, 2024 01:39:37 PM by Dr. Richard

Dr. Richard Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
AI Fallacy Master
0
The statement contains several logical issues and potentially problematic reasoning approaches:

1. **False Dichotomy (False Dilemma)**: The statement implies that the only options are to either obey all of God's commandments or be disobedient. This ignores other possibilities, such as interpreting commandments differently, focusing on fundamental principles over strict adherence, or emphasizing grace over legalism.

2. **Loaded Question**: The question "Kris, you don't want to be disobedient do you?" presupposes that disobedience is the only alternative to following all the commandments strictly. It subtly pressures Kris to agree without considering the nuances of the situation.

3. **Equivocation**: The phrase "we are not a legalistic church" is initially used to present the church as non-dogmatic. However, the insistence on strict obedience to all commandments contradicts this non-legalistic stance, suggesting an equivocation between the spirit of non-legalism and the practice of it.

4. **Appeal to Fear**: The question also plays on an emotional appeal where disobedience is framed negatively, likely to provoke fear or guilt in Kris, potentially pressuring conformity through emotional manipulation rather than logical reasoning.

5. **Circular Reasoning**: There is an implicit circular reasoning where the premise (one must obey all commandments to avoid disobedience) is also the conclusion, without offering a rational basis for why strict obedience equates to moral or spiritual superiority.

Addressing these logical issues involves clarifying the church's stance, exploring the nuances of religious teachings, and encouraging open dialogue rather than using emotionally charged or logically flawed arguments.
answered on Friday, Dec 27, 2024 01:14:59 PM by AI Fallacy Master

AI Fallacy Master Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
Dr. Richard writes:

The flaw I see with AI Master is the AI accepts the premises without question and works on a technical basis from that point on. That is the flaw. A conclusion from incorrect premises may or may not be true.

The goal of the science of thinking is to learn if the subject in question is true or false. What is “true?” The Oxford Dictionary says: “In accordance with fact or reality.” Restated: truth is the correct identification of a fact of reality.

To correctly identify a particular fact requires rules of thought to include what is correct and exclude what is incorrect. The term “logical fallacy” refers to making an error in the reasoning process. It is crucial to understand logical fallacies so we can avoid them when seeking the truth. But, if the process is correct and the foundation no, then the result is useless. 

posted on Friday, Dec 27, 2024 02:59:46 PM
...
Kostas Oikonomou
0

There's nothing wrong with that logic if you are a religious person. That's actually the definition of a religious person, which is to comply to whatever the religion commands. All religions are systems of conformity to rules of behavior. And the trick to achieve that is instead of telling you to behave in a particular way that suits the priests (to which one may reply "f*ck off priest, who do you think you are to tell me how to behave"), they just tell those who they want to manipulate that they should behave in a certain way because that's the will of some god (without any further explanation since let's not forget that god works in mysterious ways). So, religions are systems of obedience and by definition they have to hate disobedience.

Now, for non-religious, free-thinking people, there's the problem of appeal to heaven . A non-religious person would require something more than just 'the will of the god' to be convinced to behave in a certain way.  And a proper response to the claim that 'you have to do X,Y, Z because god ordered it' should always be 'if god wants me to act that way, let god tell that to me. Until then, if you don't have any other convincing reason for me to act so, f*ck off priest'. A general rule is that no god  personally spoke to the vast majority of religious people - it's always the priests that tell people what their god wants. And that fact to a scepticist is something highly suspicious.
answered on Friday, Dec 27, 2024 09:31:37 PM by Kostas Oikonomou

Kostas Oikonomou Suggested These Categories

Comments
...
0
Kris writes:

So how does one define obedience and legalism? To my understanding, legalism is strict adherence to biblical law. Believers aren't saved through works but grace alone. The Pharisses, In modern terms, a "Pharisee" refers to someone who outwardly appears very religious, strictly adhering to rules and outward displays of piety, while potentially neglecting the more important aspects of compassion and inner character, often judging others harshly while overlooking their own flaws - essentially, a person who prioritizes outward appearances of righteousness over genuine heart-centered faith, similar to the historical Pharisees in the Bible who were criticized by Jesus for their hypocrisy. Does obedience include not listening to secular music, not watching rated R films, not drinking alcohol, even in moderation, not having gay friends, attending every church service? Where does obedience end and legalism begin? Where is the line drawn? 

posted on Friday, Dec 27, 2024 11:39:40 PM
...
0
Kostas Oikonomou writes:

[To Kris]

Probably, your questions are rhetorical, but in case they're not, I think only the person you were talking to can answer them, because only that person knows what he meant when he said about legalism and how that specific church is different from the notion of legalism he had in his mind. 
I specifically, can't answer those questions because I'm an atheist. I don't know very well the dogma of christianity (although in Greece where I grew up we had obligatory indoctrination to the Orthodox dogma thoughout all levels of school, from elementary up to high school).
So, I have an idea about christianity but I don't know exactly what is written in the scriptures.   

As for my initial answer, my entire rationale was the following:
If someone accepts the scriptures of a religion to be the word of their god, and he also claim that he is a follower of that religion, that means he should abide to the teachings of the religion. And let's say that he doesn't follow exactly the rules of the religion - what may be the reasons for that?

  1. He DOESN'T KNOW the rules - no one ever told him the rule and he haven't read the scriptures himself
  2. The  scriptures are NOT CLEAR and there are only interpretation of the scriptures - in that case one can give his own interpretation and expect his god to correct him if the interpretation is wrong; NOT SOME OTHER PERSON THAT PRETENDS TO KNOW what the correct interpretation is.
  3. The scripture IS CLEAR and therefore the rule is clear but the rule is too hard to follow, so it CAN'T BE FOLLOWED by the person all the time (or the person hasn't figured it out yet how to abide with that rule at all times)
  4. The person doesn't abide to the rule because DOESN'T WANT TO ABIDE to that rule. In that case I think it's fair to say that the person is disobedient. If someone follows a religion he can't choose what rules to follow, a religion isn't a buffet where someone chooses only the rules that he likes. And of course one can live his life by choosing whatever rules he likes but if he doesn't accept all of them them he's not trully a follower of that religion. He just incorporates any rules that fit him - and that is perfectly fine. My objection to that is when the person does this and also INSISTS that he is a follower of that religion - which I think is hypocritical.

Now, specifically for what you asked me, I don't know if the scriptures forbid watching R films, or forbid drinking alcohol or having gay friends, or require you to attend every church service. From what I know nowhere in the Bible says that all these are forbiden (at least I'm absolutely positive about the films thing). So, there's your answer. If anyone says otherwise, question them and demand to support it NOT ACCORDING TO SOME PERSON'S INTERPRETATION but with clearly written prohibition in the scriptures.

[ login to reply ] posted on Monday, Dec 30, 2024 05:59:02 PM