Atheism
Line 1: Line 1:
 
'''Non sequitur''' ("it does not follow") is a Latin term that simply means that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.
 
'''Non sequitur''' ("it does not follow") is a Latin term that simply means that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.
   
==Example of a non sequitur==
+
==1st example of a non sequitur==
====Premises====
+
====1st premises====
 
#Science can’t explain the origin of life
 
#Science can’t explain the origin of life
 
#There are gaps in the fossil record
 
#There are gaps in the fossil record
   
====Conclusions====
+
====1st conclusions====
 
Different religions come up with different mutually contradictory conclusions based largely on wishful thinking:-
 
Different religions come up with different mutually contradictory conclusions based largely on wishful thinking:-
 
#Therefore [[evolution]] is false and [[God]] created us as shown in the [[Genesis creation stories|1st or 2nd Chapter of Genesis]] and further [[Jesus]] is God’s son.
 
#Therefore [[evolution]] is false and [[God]] created us as shown in the [[Genesis creation stories|1st or 2nd Chapter of Genesis]] and further [[Jesus]] is God’s son.
Line 12: Line 12:
 
#Therefore [[evolution]] is false and the gods/goddesses of our [[polytheistic]] religion created us as shown in our sacred texts.
 
#Therefore [[evolution]] is false and the gods/goddesses of our [[polytheistic]] religion created us as shown in our sacred texts.
   
====Analysis====
+
====1st analysis====
 
#The first premise is correct, science can’t explain '''yet''' the origin of life but see [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/ Articles on the Origin of Life].
 
#The first premise is correct, science can’t explain '''yet''' the origin of life but see [http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/ Articles on the Origin of Life].
 
#The second premise is is correct but unimportant, see TalkOrigins on [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html Transitional fossils]. Fossilization is a rare process and we will never get a complete record from generation to generation, but evolution is clear without a totally complete record.
 
#The second premise is is correct but unimportant, see TalkOrigins on [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html Transitional fossils]. Fossilization is a rare process and we will never get a complete record from generation to generation, but evolution is clear without a totally complete record.

Revision as of 12:38, 18 December 2011

Non sequitur ("it does not follow") is a Latin term that simply means that the conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

1st example of a non sequitur

1st premises

  1. Science can’t explain the origin of life
  2. There are gaps in the fossil record

1st conclusions

Different religions come up with different mutually contradictory conclusions based largely on wishful thinking:-

  1. Therefore evolution is false and God created us as shown in the 1st or 2nd Chapter of Genesis and further Jesus is God’s son.
  2. Therefore evolution is false and Allah created us as shown in the Koran.
  3. Therefore evolution is false and the gods/goddesses of our polytheistic religion created us as shown in our sacred texts.

1st analysis

  1. The first premise is correct, science can’t explain yet the origin of life but see Articles on the Origin of Life.
  2. The second premise is is correct but unimportant, see TalkOrigins on Transitional fossils. Fossilization is a rare process and we will never get a complete record from generation to generation, but evolution is clear without a totally complete record.
  3. This in no way shows that any one religion or sect has the true explanation for life.
  4. Further natural explanations for life and its origin are in no way ruled out, science has not found the whole story yet.

2nd example of a non sequitur

2nd premises

  1. Science can’t explain the origin of the universe
  2. I personally can’t understand quantum mechanics other complex material that atheistic scientists write.
  3. I personally can understand what my priest/pastor/mullah tells me about God.

2nd conclusions

Different religions come up with different mutually contradictory conclusions again based largely on wishful thinking:-

  1. Therefore what the most respected astronomers in the world say is false and God created the universe as shown in the 1st or 2nd Chapter of Genesis and further Jesus is God’s son.
  2. Therefore what the most respected astronomers in the world say is false and Allah created us as shown in the Koran.
  3. Therefore what the most respected astronomers in the world say is false and the gods/goddesses of our polytheistic religion created us as shown in our sacred texts.

2nd analysis

Do we need to write more?

External links