I just can’t improve on Pat Condell’s brilliance.

I’ve seen his videos in the past, but I didn’t realize he has been so prolific. (I know, I live under a rock). He did this latest video about a month ago and it’s awesome, as usual. I decided to do a transcript mainly for myself because I agreed with just about everything he said. So I thought I’d add it here. Thanks Pat, you really did nail what I think!

Godless and Free by Pat Condell

Somebody pointed out to me recently that by focusing on what I don’t want, namely religion, I’m attracting more of it into my life, which I agree would be a very unfortunate irony if not for the fact that I’m focusing on what I do want, and that’s freedom, and lots of it. Read more…

Show Bookmarks

Hide Bookmarks

(also called Appeal to Authority) Stating a claim is true because a person or group of perceived authority says it’s true. The claimant emphasizes the many years of experience and/or formal degrees held by the person or organization making the claim.

This argument is the opposite of the Ad Hominem Argument because the arguer appeals to positive characteristics of the source to support their argument, such as its perceived authority. If an advertisement shows someone wearing a white labcoat or a stern business suit, that is an appeal to authority.

This is Part 5 in a series I introduced the other day about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We’re going to go through one fallacy at a time. There are about 20 main fallacies altogether. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur.

While it’s reasonable to take into account the proper background of education and credentials, or to be suspicious of someone without such expertise, it must inevitably come down to logic and evidence to support the claim, not the person promoting it.

A good authority supports a position because there is evidence or other justifiable reasons that the argument merits, not the other way around. So, good scientists do not attach significance to their own authority. The theory needs to stand on its own and be peer reviewed. There is no need for an appeal to authority. Read more…

I don’t like beating this poor dead horse any more than you do. But we have to talk politics again today. The only thing I can think of is that you have to vote November 4th. If you like these stories and feel that this is a good direction for the country to head in, vote McCain/Palin. If you think these stories are insidious attacks against the rights of good citizens in this country, namely the precious First Amendment, then you must go out and vote for Obama/Biden.

Here are two stories I’ve read lately: Read more…

Argumentum Ad ignorantiam means the Argument from Ignorance. It basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true. This logical fallacy can also be called the Negative Proof Argument, or Appeal to Ignorance.

This is Part 4 in a series I introduced the other day about Logical Fallacies, Misconceptions, False Beliefs. We’re going to go through one fallacy at a time. There are about 20 main fallacies altogether. I’m going to try to explain them with examples then find ways to help you refute those arguments when they occur.

James stated it quite perfectly in the comments of our last fallacy lesson:

Atheist: “You cannot prove that God exists.”
Theist: “Oh yeah? Well, you cannot prove that God DOESN’T exist!”

Of course this brings up the rule: The burden of proof lies on the claimant. Basically, if you state that god exists, the burden of proof lies on you. Read more…

Creationism

Part 1

Read more…