Mchasewalker writes: [To Shawn]
So far you persist in posting religiously-themed claims you deceptively disguise as logical problems when the only problem is in your manipulation of those posts and fumbled (bad faith) reasoning in framing them.
For example, Headlining a post on Russell's Teapot Analology (sic) with Detect the fallacy is just a sophomoric, insincere, and specious move. Moreover, it's a loaded question as it presumes incorrectly that there is a logical fallacy to be detected when there clearly is not. You go on to include other diatribes about Russell being an atheist and his famous analogy being unpublished. While true, they are entirely irrelevant to the question being posed. I found this to be suspect and I called you on it.
You further qualify that post by claiming it has nothing to do with religion, just as you have done here and no doubt will continue to do as the problem goes unrecognized.
The fact is they have everything to do with religious biases in spite of your insistence that they do not. However, the biases are not so much in the religious-themed posts but in your own inept interpretations of them.
As we have experienced with others who have suffered from a similar type of doctrinarian PTSD it is obvious you're dealing with a deeper cognitive bias with hopes that logic and reason can offer some resolution or personal relief. The desire to think more critically is actually quite admirable, and this site is an excellent resource for doing just that.
Unfortunately, because of the Dunning-Kruger effect, you seem resistant to fully grasp that the fallacious reasoning is not in the problems you post but in your limitations in reasoning through them or listening to reason when generously proffered by more critically adept members.
Case in point: Dr. Bo succinctly points out that the claim in your post is not a fallacy but an opinion. He goes on to demonstrate that your interpolation of "therefore" is the real problem, but rather than engage in good faith you put up a feeble defense that only highlights your inability or unwillingness to process the answer. What is obvious is that you are not posting questions in good faith, but only to confirm the conclusions you have previously arrived at. This is the epitome of fallacious reasoning and strikes me as wholly disingenuous and unworthy of the purposes of this forum.
I have no problem in examining, debating, or discussing the logical problems inherent in doctrinarian beliefs, but I do have a problem with those who pose them for ulterior motives or with no clue as to what they are actually talking about or ability to process the answer.
As for inherent religious bias, I find the notion that just because a saint, god, or mythic figure did not exist makes religion inexplicable to be woefully ignorant. The truth is that out of the 12,000 gods, goddesses, and myths surrounding them throughout history the fact that the majority of them did not exist makes religion to be eminently more explicable.
