Why isn't the 'truth movement' more interested in logic?

My conclusion is most of the "truth movement" isn't really interested in absolute truth, they're interested in shilling/pushing for their agenda (whether it's true or not).

The thing that inspired me to create this thread was the following thread:

Does Christianity command believers to follow Satan?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In that thread I carefully constructed what I feel is a perfect syllogism.

syllogism noun : a formal argument in logic that is formed by two statements and a conclusion which must be true if the two statements are true
www.merriam-webster.com...

I didn't think I would have to explain that definition in the original post in the thread above. But, I got an ad hominem reply that had no relevance to my syllogism. The poster claimed my post was "simple." Of course it's simple. Syllogisms are simple by their nature. That has nothing to do with whether they're true or not. To attack a syllogism because one feels it's "simple" (with no other basis for a critique) shows a total lack of respect for logic in my opinion.

Maybe I expect too much on sites like this. I expect posters to be able to recognize a syllogism and to know that if they want to argue the truth of a syllogism, they must try to prove that one of the premises is wrong.

I know there are a lot of posters on these forums that don't believe that logic leads to truth. I know many believe that there is no truth at all. I think such people should identify themselves clearly right in the beginning of every debate. I have wasted too many hours debating with people that I thought believed in logic and/or truth only to find out that they didn't believe in those things. At that point it becomes exactly like arguing with a solipsistic person, it's a waste of time.

For those that do believe in logic and truth, it's hard to understand why logic is so underutilized. Logic leads one to truth. If you're interested in truth, you should be interested in logic.

a reply to: Profusion

I am confused. What has your previous thread, got to do with the truth movement?

Would you care to illuminate the edges of your thinking on this matter?

a reply to: Profusion
I believe it was because everybody thought they could recognise two things;
a) The argument was fallacious, because the two statements being correlated were actually talking about two different things.
b) You were deliberately constructing a false argument for the sake of presenting a controversial conclusion.
That kind of approach is not worth arguing with, which is why I didn't bother.

People might also be gauging your character from your other thread, claiming that your partner is a robot.
I think you've been sussed, old son.

P.S. What are you complaining about, anyway?
The "usual suspects" who dislike Christianity came in and gave you stars and flags. What more could you want?

a reply to: Profusion

Can't we flip this argument to those who believer in the OS?

a reply to: DISRAELI

a) The argument was fallacious, because the two statements being correlated were actually talking about two different things.

Spot on. A bit of contextual reading of the same passages used would have shown this to be true.

b) You were deliberately constructing a false argument for the sake of presenting a controversial conclusion.

Say it isn't so.

P.S. What are you complaining about, anyway? The "usual suspects" who dislike Christianity came in and gave you stars and flags. What more could you want?

Hey now. I resemble that remark, but I was not one of the "usual suspects" in this case.

Any thing called a "truth" movement should be automatically suspect. Its a come on, 'if you want truth, look here', kind of thing.

Truth is convincing enough of its own accord, people can see something is true or not for themselves.

If someone tells me "what I am about to tell you is the truth", then I suspect they are about to lie in the name of truth.

Just show your evidence, I'll decide if its truthful or not.

a reply to: Profusion

One man's truth....is another man's suspicion. In a perfect world....everyone, religion, political party, UFO proponent... would all agree on the same points.

They do not, won't, don't and it won't happen. That's one reason we have war.

a reply to: Profusion

So you didn't get the response you wanted in a deliberate effort to provoke and bash your fellow ATSers so you start another thread to just provoke and bash your fellow ATSers?

Here's one for you: Garbage in, garbage out.

You created a "truth" based on a premise that is faulty in more ways than one. For starters, you mistake the ministry of Jesus with the ramblings of Saul of Tarsus.

All Paulians are Christian... but not all Christians are Paulians... therefore your syllogism is neither logical nor valid.

a reply to: Profusion

What is the 'Truth Movement'?

a reply to: Profusion

I think logic leads to objective truth if it is followed instead of subjective belief (called truth by some since they cannot question their own ideas). The problem is when you ideas become very big so it is hard to know what is subjective or objective. I struggle with this all the time trying to be objective falling into the subjective.

So basically your a smart ass wielding logic and intelligence... and "truthers" are cray cray beat around the bush and believe what they will regardless logical explanation?

Well you sir, are a hero amongst the mindless.

The Christian thread was crap and pointless. You're all logical about angels, demons, gods, devils, Satan controlling everything and being worshipped??

Where I'm from, we call that counterproductive!

Here, I'll give you a star for being so logical and stuff

And a medal

a reply to: Profusion

Here's a medal, a star and I'll even throw in a flag...want some cheese with the whine, sir?

Oh and...one question: is it logical that extraterrestrial & interdimensional beings exist?

originally posted by: Ultralight
a reply to: Profusion

Here's a medal, a star and I'll even throw in a flag...want some cheese with the whine, sir?

Oh and...one question: is it logical that extraterrestrial & interdimensional beings exist?

No, actual proof beyond contactees and blurry photos would be logical. Anything else would be, dare I say, illogical. Yet fascinating.

a reply to: TrueBrit

me too, i thought the truth movement was about UFOs and/or 911....
Lost.

it is not very likely that your average religious person would recognize a syllogism. in my experience logic and organized religion do not mix very well. they will never see the flaws in the book because they have faith, and holding on to faith is more precious than puny logics.