post hoc ergo propter hoc

i just took the GRE so this is fresh in my mind. this is the most common logical fallacy: 'after this, therefore because of this'. basically a confusion of causation and correlation, when one event follows another, the second event must have been caused by the first. im not saying im right, or that this guy is wrong, just that we are all equally human and all equally flawed, so why think you have some special view of truth that others dont. we are all bound by subjectivity. and, im just having fun. this was easy. enjoy the video! thanks for the discussion

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• listeningriffin
• wrath
• atheist
• atheism
• god

[k3hatchbacks]

you're videos are so much better when they're more clear. ;D

[listeningriffin]

omg ur here ur here ur here!! and you are already reminding me of my cam = teh suck

**does a little dance**

[TheBlindWatchmaker]

I find it amusing how you try to use logic, yet you use the false dichotomy argument. Worse yet, you reject one possibility entirely. One is then to wonder why it is only Christians that are opposing gay marriage in America or why some bomb abortion clinics. While I know that the problem is not entirely religion, given the evidence of certain situations it is safe to propose that religion does play at the least some role in the problem, if not most.

[listeningriffin]

hmm, im not sure why you say this is false dichotomy. i was merely demonstrating through 3rd grade logic that just because wars are started by religious people that doesnt actually mean that the wars start because people are religious. post hoc ergo propter hoc.

[jumpingmattflash]

and you just strawmanned his argument. arent we being bad and commiting fallacies today!

[listeningriffin]

ego = fallacy

so whenever it is that i erase mine, ill be spock and everything will be kosher. untill then, i would count on me making sense.

this strawman thing is really dumb, it can be said anytime, about any arguement, ever. you dont know what i think = strawman!

[OneBigRetard]

This is pretty much bullshit.

You can't put war into a lab. This is geopolitics and more suited a historians approach.

How can you explain the fact that European peasants walked to Jerusalem to fight without religion?

That is anecdotal.

The fatal flaw with your analysis is the notion of scientific certainty. We have to act in the real world of a combination of factors with incomplete evidence. Anecdotal is sometimes all you have in the absence of experimental. The decision remains regardless.

[ringojuice]

cool beans. 14 minutes of really obvious cool beans...

[ihabphdcvbab]

i dont think we can argue in absolutes. however causation is neccessary fo our species to advance. consider the statement: smoking causes death. perhpas smokers in general die of a certain cancer more often than those who dont smoke. but that doesnt meen the smoking caused it. we must think that smoking is unhealthy however. likewise we can see through causation that religion has been and is 'a' root cause for discrimination

[rattaplan]

Well fortunately there is a highly logical explanation why souls, if they were to even exist, would be totally pointless. That is a good enough reason for me.

[jumpingmattflash]

listeninggriffin - i didnt mean you commited that fallacy i meant him, didnt hear anything about christians and gay marrage until theblindwatchmaker

[jumpingmattflash]

its all about tangents, your point was something different then what he said, im not saying completely irrelevant but strawman is just bending an argument to suit your own purpose, good debate probably just hides that fallacy really well lol

[TheBlindWatchmaker]

I was intending to write "mostly" instead of "only." Seriously, you believe that the problem of anti-gay marriage is not a mostly a Christian one? Maybe it's just a coincidence that they believe the bible is the word of god and that "word of god" says homosexuals are deserving of death. I don't see secularists with banners saying "god hates fags." If their book said "let gays marry," what side of the argument do you think they'd be?