Religious Tolerance

[UnoMOTO]

No he was completely and totally wrong. He gave examples of flawed logic leading you to incorrect conclusions. Then blamed logic for his own inability to distinguish proper reasoning from flawed reasoning.

I announced up front that logic doesn't fix improper assumptions. But that's not a flaw in reasoning, it's a flaw in the person who came up with the assumptions.

Ok OK...the house has always been white.

It's my thread.

Doh!!! Thank you for putting me in my place.

 

[Danoff]

1. My apple will rot
2. I have an orange
3. Every swan I ever saw was white.

All valid logical conclusions.

I hope that wasn't supposed to be hard.

Quite the contrary, it was supposed to be easy.

Now, what you're getting at:
1. = deductive
2. = deductive again, I believe
3. = inductive (if i assumed all swans were white)

Right. Specifically, in number one you used Modus Ponens, in number 2 you used double negation. Both valid logical operations. Logic does not give you assumptions, only a way to obtain conclusions as valid as your assumptions. Which is why your conclusion in part one is wrong. Even though you used proper logic to obtain it, if you have a wooden apple, your conclusion is off-base.

Now how does this relate to your ealier posts?

If I said by the human eye, standing on the earth, one would logically assume the sun rotated around the earth

Logic does not provide you with assumptions.

But if you want to believe that logic ( a line, or "type" of resoning" will "teach" you things, and give you answers for questions to which you do not have all the answers for, that's perfectly ok with me.

You used logic above to draw conclusions you didn't have before. In general, logic does give you answers (like mathematics and calculus, for example, which were derived from logic).

If you know that your house is white, and has old white chips falling off, and can see only see white paint underneath, you'll logically believe that house to have always been white.

Exactly how does that logical proof work?

 

[///M-Spec]

You need to re-visit my original post, and possibly read again, something, if you're going to keep with the posts that insinuate I've said things I haven't even remotely touched.
Example A. My saying Logical thought will not give you an answer, if you are equipped with the wrong information to start, ( i,e, the "apple", or "a", does NOT exist) is not the same as saying anything to the likes of "logic is flawed".
Take an intelligent moment, and actually find anywhere where I've said anything negative about logic, before you make another crap-post like this, because that really belongs in a dumpster in New Jersey somewhere.

You implied logic would lead people to incorrect conclusions. About the Earth being flat and about white house paint. Negative or positive, that is NOT proper logic. Proper use of logic will make the user challenge his premises or think through how he has arrived at them.

I pointed out you have misrepresented logic in both examples. What you THINK is logic is just misuse of logic based on faulty premises. And that because people make mistakes does not make the logical process any less valuable or credible.

And really... for someone who has been making patronizing and conceited comments like "the whole point clearly went over your head", "you guys just don't get it", the utterly pathetic "I don't know how you can type" and my personal favorite, "take an intelligent moment", you really have no business accusing people of immaturity.

When you are challenged on topic in this thread, you have either attacked the person's intelligence directly or assumed the person just 'didn't get it'. 👎 That's childish. And it just screams to people, "I have no argument and my ego is frail". How about you clean up your own act before you start complaining about how other people behave around here?

You want a mature conversation? How about you try actually addressing and rebuff my arguments instead of pulling a stunt like you did with the quoting?

In fact, I challenge you to have an intelligent debate with anyone in this thread without making a single cheapshot because you can't seem to get your point across without insulting someone.

However, if you're happier busting an attitude, knock yourself out. Just don't cry about it when you get it thrown right back at you.


M

 

[Danoff]

...just to follow up a bit.

If you know that your house is white, and has old white chips falling off, and can see only see white paint underneath, you'll logically believe that house to have always been white.

This is inductive reasoning. Drawing conclusions based on observation and experience. It's not sound logic. Now that I have taught you the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, I hope you can see how you abused the notion of logic in this example.

 

[wfooshee]

Logic can only carry you as far as your knowledge.
If you know that your house is white, and has old white chips falling off, and can see only see white paint underneath, you'll logically believe that house to have always been white.

Your house is white.
There is white underneath existing white paint.

Given those two, the ONLY conclusion is that your house was previously white, NOT that it was always white.

Logic carries you as far as the validity of your assumptions. In your solar system example, you stated that one would "logically" see that the sun, moon, and stars move around the Earth. Your unstated assumptions were that the Earth is flat and that it is unmoving, which are invalid assumptions, therefore the conclusion is invalid.

As far as the discussion goes, it's easy to see who's had Geometry and who hasn't.

 

[Deathclown66]

Which is why your conclusion in part one is wrong. Even though you used proper logic to obtain it, if you have a wooden apple, your conclusion is off-base.

You said:

All apples will rot.

It will rot then, because wooden apples are included in "all".

Just don't cry about it

Nice post, but this portion was my favorite.
hypocrisy has always amused me.


P.S. @-Danoff:
Wood Rots.

 

[Danoff]

You said:

It will rot then, because wooden apples are included in "all".

P.S. @-Danoff:
Wood Rots.

Ok, a concrete apple then. The point is that logic is always only as good as the assumptions. If your assumption is wrong, logic can't help you.

 

[Deathclown66]

Ok, a concrete apple then. The point is that logic is always only as good as the assumptions. If your assumption is wrong, logic can't help you.

And this argues my original point how?

Logic can only carry you as far as your knowledge.
If you know that your house is white, and has old white chips falling off, and can see only see white paint underneath, you'll logically believe that house to have always been white.
But what logic cant tell you is that the house was stripped of it's paint. And since you don't know paint can be stripped, you can't even consider it an option.

Now, since you insist that the "house" example is not logic, please give an example of logic being used in a scenerio where you do not have a subject that is always the same.
In other words, instead of something that always rots, or always makes the streets wet, tell me what constitues as logic in an example where you can use logic, without having a pre-assumed "given", with no exceptions.

Or, what would be a logical thought process to determine the original color of a house, without being given the answer.

 

[wfooshee]

. . . tell me what constitues as logic in an example where you can use logic, without having a pre-assumed "given", with no exceptions.

Or, what would be a logical thought process to determine the original color of a house, without being given the answer.

Now you've just shown that you don't understand the concept at all. There is ALWAYS a given, a premise to test a condition against. The premise may be an axiom or postulate (a self-evident statement) as we've seen defined in a previous post, or it may be a proven conclusion from a previous logic process. (That's the basis of geometry, and the reason for my reference to it earlier. Geometry is nothing but logical proofs of theorems, starting from a few basic postulates. Once a theorem is proven, it can be used to support subsequent proofs.)

Logic does NOT mean, "Well, it feels right so it's logical that such-and-such is true," which is what your sun, moon and stars example tried to demonstrate. Staying with that, if one states first that the Earth is fixed and unmoving, then they may well conclude that the sun moves around the Earth. The Earth is fixed, the sun moves in the sky, therefore the sun moves around the Earth. But if the original "given" is incorrect, then ALL conclusions drawn from it are deemed to be incorrect. The Earth is not fixed after all, so we can not show that the sun moves around it.

The assumption is not the point of logic, the conclusion is the point of logic. As Danoff said, logic is only as valid as the assumption. There HAS to be an assumtion, a given.

In computer programming, logic takes the form of "IF .... THEN ..." structures. If A is true, do B, that kind of thing. There's always a single correct path, yes or no, true or false. Higher structures like DO WHILE or CASE are built on IF THEN logic: their execution implies a conditional test to see if the end of the loop has been reached. I know I'm using syntax and commands from UNIX scripts, maybe BASIC, but I'm not versed in programming languages. I write the occasional script once in a while, but I don't compile code.

Lastly, there is no way to determine the original color of the house with your "givens". The only conclusion, like I said before, is that it was previously white.

 

[Danoff]

And this argues my original point how?

You blamed logic when you should have blamed faulty assumptions.

Now, since you insist that the "house" example is not logic, please give an example of logic being used in a scenerio where you do not have a subject that is always the same.
In other words, instead of something that always rots, or always makes the streets wet, tell me what constitues as logic in an example where you can use logic, without having a pre-assumed "given", with no exceptions.

Very simple. All of mathematics is based on logic with only the given that 1+1=2. Want something else? How about proving things false? You can do that by assuming that it is true, then using logic to prove that it is not true. Logic is not useless.

And inductive reasoning, which is what your house xample is based on, is not logic.

Or, what would be a logical thought process to determine the original color of a house, without being given the answer.

I'd suggest using an illogical approach and rely on inductive reasoning and evidence. It won't get you the right answer for certain, it doesn't use logic, but it's a whole lot easier.

 

[///M-Spec]

Nice post, but this portion was my favorite.
hypocrisy has always amused me.

I bet it does. It would explain why you are such a skilled practitioner.

Pal, the rules are simple. I treat people the way they treat me. If you are polite, I will be polite to you. If you act in an arrogant, condescending manner, you will get treated like an arrogant, condescending person.


M

 

[UnoMOTO]

Your house is white.
There is white underneath existing white paint.

Given those two, the ONLY conclusion is that your house was previously white, NOT that it was always white.

I was trying to find an out to be on Deathclown66 side but this statement above in the most simplistic way shows how DC's logic was bad logic to begin with. Don't fall over wfooshee but I agree with you here! I have come to the dark side!

 

[wfooshee]

I was trying to find an out to be on Deathclown66 side but this statement above in the most simplistic way shows how DC's logic was bad logic to begin with. Don't fall over wfooshee but I agree with you here! I have come to the dark side!

Welcome, my friend, welcome!!

And we call it the light side!

 

[ledhed]

After reading the last two pages the Irony of the topic has overwhelmed me.
I have overloaded all of my circuits.

The funny part about the earth being flat and the sun and earth revolving ...blah blah blah..was that RELIGION was used to suppress logic so that point could be made that the EARTH was the center of the universe as God intended it to be. Along with white Europeans being directed by God to save the savages and enslave them , And a million other things the CHRISTIAN religion meddled in and suppressed through murder and torture that had to do with scientific advancement in medicine and math and geology..or any science that went against the doctrine of the Christian religion.
In fact compare the way the Muslims treated science as a gift from the creator and that a discovery was gods will and a gift from the creator.
To the Christian practice of burning people for saying the earth was not the center of the universe...or actually practicing surgery .

Any discussion of LOGIC should always consider and include the anti -logic that is organized religion.

Yes this whole thread has just completely overwhelmed my logic centers...it does not compute ........it does not compute ....danger ...danger....system overload....

 

[Deathclown66]

You blamed logic when you should have blamed faulty assumptions.

What did I say that "blamed" logic again?
Show me.

Very simple. All of mathematics is based on logic with only the given that 1+1=2. Want something else? How about proving things false? You can do that by assuming that it is true, then using logic to prove that it is not true. Logic is not useless.

And show me where I said logic was useless NOW....................
tick, tock, anyday yet.
Oh, you can't? Oh MY GOD! you mean I never said that?!?!? Then why are you saying I did?!?!?!?????

I'd suggest using an illogical approach and rely on inductive reasoning and evidence. It won't get you the right answer for certain, it doesn't use logic, but it's a whole lot easier.

So there is no logical wasy to determine a house's original color?

Pal, the rules are simple. I treat people the way they treat me. If you are polite, I will be polite to you. If you act in an arrogant, condescending manner, you will get treated like an arrogant, condescending person.

Likewise. I guess if you wouldnt have misquoted me from the start, (which you claim I later did about you, oddly) and been condescending about your misquote, we wouldnt be here.

 

[///M-Spec]

Likewise. I guess if you wouldnt have misquoted me from the start, (which you claim I later did about you, oddly) and been condescending about your misquote, we wouldnt be here.

Misquoted you from the start?? Show me where I did that. Take your time. I'll be right here.

My first post to you was this one, where I pointed out you made a reasoning mistake. I quoted you 100% verbatim. I even supported my point by linking a reference. I made no slight against your intelligence. Just that you made a mistake.

Well I guess having someone pointing our your error must have gotten your hackles up. Your reply to me, where instead of arguing against my point or accepting you made an error, you just reiterated the same argument and spent the rest of the time telling me 'it went over my head' and how you didn't know how I could type.

And don't play any games or deny what you did with the quoting. You can argue all you want about house paint and the earth being flat, but you WILL LOSE the argument about the quoting. I guarantee it.


M

 

[Deathclown66]

What you present is called a False Dilemma and people like Aristotle has been telling us this is NOT logical for over two thousand years. A false dilemma is when you claim there are only a certain number of choices when in fact there may be more. NOT logical at all.

It's pretty ironic that you are trying to attack logical reasoning by making a reasoning mistake.

1. I did not present a false dilemma, I stated that Logic will only take you as far as your knowledge.
2. I did not claim only a certain amount of choices, I claimed a certain amount of knowledge.
3. I never once "attacked logical reasoning" in any way, shape, or form.

Care to show where I did? Or are you just blowing smoke?

P.S. Thanks for the link, made this only take 2 minutes or less

 

[///M-Spec]

mis·quote
-quot·ed, -quot·ing, noun
–verb (used with object), verb (used without object)
1. to quote incorrectly.
–noun
2. a quotation that is incorrect.

Please show me where I misquoted you. There are no quotes at all in my post. The words that appear in the quote tags are 100% verbatim what you wrote.

We'll get to the rest of that stuff after you've supplied evidence I misquoted you.


M

 

[Shannon]

Back to the topic at hand:

If someone believes in Zeus and all the other Greek gods we call them odd. Yet, if someone believes in God/Allah/Buddhu, that's fine. Greek mythology is a belief system, just like Christianity or Islam or any other religion. None of them have been 'proven', so it is impossible to say one is right and one is wrong. Therefore, if we treat people that believe in Greek mythologoy as odd, following the same logic, all religious people must be odd for believing in an unproven higher being. If a person were to kill another and say the great god Zeus commanded him to, would we tolerate him? No, we'd throw him in jail without second thought. Yet, we tolerate these extremist muslims.

My understanding of danoff's original post is that these extremists are justifying their actions with religion, and we are tolerating them because of that excuse; when as I said earlier, religion is just an unproven belief system that spreads via placebo. If these extremist excused their actions with anything other than their religion, we'd have no problem going over there and connecting boot to arse. After all, the Nazi's wanted the same thing the extremist muslims do, and we went to war with them!

 

[Deathclown66]

Back to the topic at hand:

If someone believes in Zeus and all the other Greek gods we call them odd. Yet, if someone believes in God/Allah/Buddhu, that's fine. Greek mythology is a belief system, just like Christianity or Islam or any other religion. None of them have been 'proven', so it is impossible to say one is right and one is wrong. Therefore, if we treat people that believe in Greek mythologoy as odd, following the same logic, all religious people must be odd for believing in an unproven higher being. If a person were to kill another and say the great god Zeus commanded him to, would we tolerate him? No, we'd throw him in jail without second thought. Yet, we tolerate these extremist muslims.

My understanding of danoff's original post is that these extremists are justifying their actions with religion, and we are tolerating them because of that excuse; when as I said earlier, religion is just an unproven belief system that spreads via placebo. If these extremist excused their actions with anything other than their religion, we'd have no problem going over there and connecting boot to arse. After all, the Nazi's wanted the same thing the extremist muslims do, and we went to war with them!

But the Nazi's were attacking as an entire country, Germany. Germany was attacking countries left and right, whereas the governments of these "extremists", deny any and all connections with these people.

I also don't think they're being 'left off' because of their religion, but aren't being fully attacked because they're a group of citizens inside countries.
To go to war with them, would be like Canada going to war the Crips, because they commited terrorist acts against people in Mexico and America.

 

[Danoff]

DC,

I'll get to your other requests later, but quickly here:

1. I did not present a false dilemma, I stated that Logic will only take you as far as your knowledge.

I've shown you time and again that you can get new knowledge from logic. I used arithmatic, calculus, algebra, geometry, as well as almost all of computer programming, more intangible aspects of philosophy and even the ability to rule out possibilities by starting with an assumption and proving it false. There are many ways to obtain new knowledge from logic, you do it every single day... so give it a rest.

3. I never once "attacked logical reasoning" in any way, shape, or form.

You never once SUCCESSFULLY attacked logical reasoning. Several times you asserted that logic was useless, in fact, you did so in the first quote in this post.

I'll present a more thorough dismantling of your complaining later.

 

[Deathclown66]

I've shown you time and again that you can get new knowledge from logic. I used arithmatic, calculus, algebra, geometry, as well as almost all of computer programming, more intangible aspects of philosophy and even the ability to rule out possibilities by starting with an assumption and proving it false. There are many ways to obtain new knowledge from logic, you do it every single day... so give it a rest.

Well, I now know what your confusion is about.
You're taking my statement "logic will only take you as far as your knowledge" to mean a few things that it wasn't intended to.
So I'll reiterate: Logic will not tell you what "A" is. Logic will not tell you what "B" is. Logic will not tell you what "C" is. So while logic is a fantastic tool to unravel the mystery that is A being B, and B being the same as C, and therefore A being C, it will not give you the answer, without you first realizing the possibilty of A, B, or C.
That does NOT mean that logic is useless.
That is NOT an attack on logic itself.
That is NOT a false dillema.

That IS a simple truth, used soley for the purpose of explaining that just because somebody does not believe everything you (Danoff) do, does NOT mean they are thinking without logic.
It means that even though you know that A, B, and C exist, there are plenty of people in this world who don't know that C or possibly even B exist.
So the fact that they don't believe C is the proper answer, does NOT mean they are stupid, or not using logic, it simply means they either don't have the proper base assumptions to sort through, or they have the wrong assumptions.

You never once SUCCESSFULLY attacked logical reasoning. Several times you asserted that logic was useless, in fact, you did so in the first quote in this post.

It's VERY difficult to be succesful without an effort.

I'll present a more thorough dismantling of your complaining later.

I'll be waiting on edge for that.

P.S. For clarity's sake, I'll explain some a little farther, despite your own touted intelligence.
a. is a chocolate lab
b. is a lab.
c. is a dog.
logic connects the dots.
logic does not tell you what is a chocolate lab.
logic does not tell you what a lab is.
logic does not tell you what a dog is.
logic does not tell you that a lab is a dog.
logic tells you that IF a chocolate lab is a lab, than this is a lab.
and logic tells you that IF a lab is a dog, this is a dog.

But if you think a lab is a cat, you will logically believe that a chocolate lab is a cat.
And this is what I've been trying to tell you about religion. Just because these people have an off-the-mark opinion about something, does not make their thinking "unlogical" or "irrational".
For it to be either of the two things you have taken it as a given that they are] you must make the faulty assumption that these people have all the same knowledge in the first place.

And to some people, that could make it sound as though you have an "unlogical" opinion of these people, because you based it on a faulty assumption, just as they have.

but logic has nothing to do with it it is simply a faulty assumption from the start.

 

[Danoff]

A Summary of the Logical Fallacies and General Confusion of DeathClown​

Logic: Believing that this earth was created by a god, a higher power. Why is this logical? because everything we see, and know, we see created somehow. As a regular person, that knows nothing about the common facts known to the scientific world, most people believe in a god for all the logical reasons.

Here you mistake inductive reasoning for deductive reasoning (for the first time). Then go on to explain a method of inductive reasoning that makes no sense. The evidence you points to doesn’t follow. I posted a dismantling of this “logic” (as you claim it is) earlier in this thread.

Moving on…

Logic can only carry you as far as your knowledge.

Wrong. Logic allows you to draw many conclusions from knowledge that you didn’t have before. Here’s an example:

Knowledge
---------------
1) A
2) A->B
3) not (C and A)
4) D->C
5) B->Q

That’s what you know. Here’s new knowledge Logic gives you that you didn’t know before.

1) B
2) not C
3) not D
4) Q
5) A->Q

You knew 5 things, logic taught you 5 new things.

If you know that your house is white, and has old white chips falling off, and can see only see white paint underneath, you'll logically believe that house to have always been white.

Again, inductive reasoning – and a poor example at that.

and that is the reason "thinking logically", will not tell the world the origins of the universe. One must first find facts, and then use logic to put them together.
If one finds no facts, or has no evidence of the facts placed before them, the most logical thinking in the world cannot help them.

Here you attempt to show that logic cannot help with the particular problem of the origins of the universe. Then you attempt to provide evidence that does not support the original claim.

You claim that if one has no facts, logic cannot help them. This is true. Then you claim that the result of this is that logic cannot help us with the origins of the universe problem. Let us reduce this to a logical problem. Let’s call facts F. And logic helping us L. You claim.

1) not F->not L

That is true and we can admit it into the list of correct assumptions. From this premise you draw the following conclusion:

not L

That doesn’t follow. If you could show “not F”, you’d have a legitimate point. However, let's admit a new premise:

2) F->L

If you have facts, logic can help you.

So if we can show that we have facts about the origins of the universe, we know for a fact that logic can in fact help us. Do you think we have any facts about the origins of the universe? We’ve made observations near the origins of the universe. I can prove one fact about it. Whatever the “origins of the universe” end up being, they must result in the universe at it’s current state. That’s a fact, and that (by the logic above), means that logic can help us determine the origins of the universe.

Done. It’s proven, you were wrong.

Moving on…

But somewhere, something had to come first.
did everything form out of nothing? surely there had to be something that was the first piece of something, that ever existed. Something that formed from absolute nothingness.
So while there may not be proof of a god's existence, there is certainly no proof otherwise.

You make multiple claims here with no support.

1) Something had to come first.
2) Not everything came from nothing
3) Something formed from nothing.
4) There is no proof against God’s existence

The last one would not require evidence if it weren’t for the fact that you used proof in a less formal sense. If you meant proof formally, you’d have said “there may not be A proof”. By saying “there may not be proof” it means you intended to say “there may not be evidence”. So we can replace 4 above with a corrected version:

4) There is no evidence against God’s existence

In the biblical sense, this is definitely false. The only way this could be true is if we change the meaning of the statement to something that is actually possible:

4) There is no evidence against A God’s existence

This requires support. I highly doubt you can show me that there is in fact zero evidence against the existence of A God. So in order for it to be true we’d have to change it again.

4) There is not currently evidence against the existence of A God.

This statement is almost meaningless, but it is true. The reason it is almost meaningless is because the word “God” implies un undefined being of undefined power and undefined intent. To find evidence that such a being does not exist is not possible, and never will be possible. It doesn’t tell us much. As for 1,2 and 3 earlier – I’d like to see you prove any of those claims.

Moving on…

If I said by the human eye, standing on the earth, one would logically assume the sun rotated around the earth, it would mean nothing different from the house painting example.

It is no different from the house example in that you again claim the inductive reasoning is logic.

But if you want to believe that logic ( a line, or "type" of resoning" will "teach" you things, and give you answers for questions to which you do not have all the answers for, that's perfectly ok with me.

Here you claim that logic may not “teach you things, or give you answers for questions to which you do not have all the answers for”. This is entirely false as I have shown above.

Example A. My saying Logical thought will not give you an answer, if you are equipped with the wrong information to start, ( i,e, the "apple", or "a", does NOT exist) is not the same as saying anything to the likes of "logic is flawed".

This is true. But I’d like to see you prove that “logical thought will not give you the right answer if you are equipped with the wrong information to start.” That is necessarily incorrect. False premises are completely capable of giving you a correct conclusion. But if they do, count yourself lucky because it was purely an accident.

What did I say that "blamed" logic again?

Ok.

If you know that your house is white, and has old white chips falling off, and can see only see white paint underneath, you'll logically believe that house to have always been white.

Here you blame logic for the failings of inductive reasoning.

If I said by the human eye, standing on the earth, one would logically assume the sun rotated around the earth, it would mean nothing different from the house painting example.

Here again you blame logic for the failings of inductive reasoning.

But if you want to believe that logic ( a line, or "type" of resoning" will "teach" you things, and give you answers for questions to which you do not have all the answers for, that's perfectly ok with me.

Here you imply that logic cannot give you new information.

and that is the reason "thinking logically", will not tell the world the origins of the universe. One must first find facts, and then use logic to put them together.
If one finds no facts, or has no evidence of the facts placed before them, the most logical thinking in the world cannot help them.

Here you claim that logic is useless for the purpose of determining the origins of the universe – which is funny in light of the following quote from you:

Logic: Believing that this earth was created by a god, a higher power. Why is this logical? because everything we see, and know, we see created somehow. As a regular person, that knows nothing about the common facts known to the scientific world, most people believe in a god for all the logical reasons.

Now, to get right down to it – you’ve recently backed off from most of the ridiculous claims that I went to so much effort to debunk here. Right now you’re claiming that logic cannot overcome false assumptions. I’ve said many times in this thread that it cannot, and so I’m not going to disagree with that. As I’ve said multiple times, your conclusions from proper logic are only as good as your assumptions. So if that’s all you’re arguing at this stage in the game, you can stop now – we’re in agreement. But don’t try to claim that that’s all you’ve been saying since the beginning. You have been saying it since the beginning, but you’ve also made a bunch of other ridiculous claims that I’ve examined above. I’ll accept your apology now for this whole mess and your admittance that you needed a course in logic to help you understand the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning, and how logic can give you new knowledge from old information.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now let’s get to the point of all this logic mumbo jumbo…

And this is what I've been trying to tell you about religion. Just because these people have an off-the-mark opinion about something, does not make their thinking "unlogical" or "irrational".
For it to be either of the two things you have taken it as a given that they are] you must make the faulty assumption that these people have all the same knowledge in the first place.

Faith is by definition illogical and irrational. Faith is the belief in something of which you have no proof. Logic is proof. There is no definition of Faith that can be used to make it logical or rational, and you shouldn’t be attempting such a ludicrous feat. Just accept that faith is the unjustified belief in something – most religious folks can handle that. If you can’t, I suggest that you examine your justifications a little better and then drop faith altogether.

 

[UnoMOTO]

I'm glad I don't have to reply to that post! I have invisioned you yelling outloud at your computer while you were typing that.

 

[Danoff]

I'm glad I don't have to reply to that post! I have invisioned you yelling outloud at your computer while you were typing that.

Not at all. It was typed quite calmly.

 

[Deathclown66]

I'll retort to all that later, but for now, a short, simple question for you.
Since you have stated over and over that "you will no longer tolerate people's lack of logic, and their stupidity when it comes to religion", (or something along that line), please tell me, what is your "logical" thought when it comes to the universe?
Tell me what logic says about all of this.
Well, in short, we all already know, logic has no say, there is no logical answer for the universe being here, none whatsoever.
So why/how do you call people fools for believing in something?
Why do you find it necessary to use only one, specific form of reasoning to make all decisions? Especially one that clearly has no answer at this point? Are you simply that afraid of being wrong? Or do you really (pardon the pun) believe that everything needs to be proven by logic before it can be accepted?

P.S. Who said I have faith? All I've said is that a belief in God is not necessarily unlogical. (I'll get into specifics later)

 

[Swift]

P.S. Who said I have faith? All I've said is that a belief in God is not necessarily unlogical. (I'll get into specifics later)

Ok, no. This is a LOGICAL contradiction. A belief in God IS faith. How can you say you believe in a spiritual being and don't have faith? Outside of Jesus christ, there have been no physical forms of God on earth(except for a few instances in the old testament). And since you weren't alive during the time of Christ...how is it not faith to believe in God?

BTW, believing in God is very illogical to someone that hasn't opened themselves up to him yet.

 

[Deathclown66]

Ok, no. This is a LOGICAL contradiction. A belief in God IS faith. How can you say you believe in a spiritual being and don't have faith? Outside of Jesus christ, there have been no physical forms of God on earth(except for a few instances in the old testament). And since you weren't alive during the time of Christ...how is it not faith to believe in God?

BTW, believing in God is very illogical to someone that hasn't opened themselves up to him yet.

I can't tell if the first part is sarcasm or what.
Anyway, I never said I believe in God. I said it may not be un logical.
Just because something cannot currently be dealt with by logic, does not make it un logical, does it? If there is no logical answer, is it automatically defaulted to un logical?
Even if you think or know it does, it really doesn't matter, because logic is clearly exhausted on the subject, and not the way to the answer for us. (until we die).

I'll get into the whole in-ductive vs. de-ductive thing later, but for now:
There are plenty of things people use inductive reasoning for to believe in God, and it doesn't make them stupid, or irrational.
Many people believe that science has proven the earth to be between 6-10 thousand years old, people have looked through history, and found 2 hr (I think) gaps missing in the time frame, only to find that in the Bible, it states God set the sun back 10 degrees one day, long ago. The very dinosaurs that science states to be billions of years old, are mentioned in the bible. In fact, I don't think there's nary a fact science has found that isn't covered in the bible, and if there is, it is certainly not common knowledge, especially to the followers.
And while one might say they "turn away from known facts" at times, the Bible also states repetitively that the world will try to sway you with false facts and knowledge. Given that, it wouldn't be to wise for a biblical follower to "open their eyes", now would it?
Also take the fact that many people are exposed to religion by their parents, the most influential of people to them, at a very young age, when their parents are like gods to them, there is no reason to doubt it. By the time they get older, it is already embedded in their brain.
Add to all of this, that the thought of being able to go live in the clouds after you die, in a perfect world, is the most comforting of thoughts in the world, especially when compared to the alternatives of A. Possibly being brought back as a rat, or cow, or B. Dying, everything ends, you no longer get to ever do anything again, and a sense a finality that my words cannot elaborate clearly enough, anybody would rather be cuddled in heaven, while all the meanies go burn in hell.
Don't forget human nature, to try to rid our world of anything and everything the scares us, because fear makes us angry, and we don't like being scared, because it's scary. The fear simply makes us try to kill the scary things, like death.
And then religions provide rules, some are stupid, most are sensible. While a pain in the ass, many, many things in the Bible are fantastic tools for everyday life advice, whether you believe in any god or not. If you read and think many of the rules through, you may find that even though the rule itself seems stupid, their lies a greater purpose beneath it, that can make you say "ooh, that's why" over and over again throughout your lifetime.
And then their's the rules everybody appreciates, such as the ten commandments. almost everyone in the world supports most or all of these, regardless of race, religion, or any other factor. presumably for the same reasons a child born in a Jewish family does not believe in Christ, and one born into a Christian family wonders why the Jewish kid does not believe in Christ. Parental influence, and early teachings.
And lastly, the ugly side, the side that starts wars. The side that says anybody who infringes upon your beliefs, and your people, should be killed, without second guessing. This has a reasonable side to it as well. If somebody who believes that murder and rape are ok, imposes on you and/or your society, would you not fight back? Well, since religious beliefs, or rules, guidelines, are looked at in the same manner as morals by non-religious people, they will fight for them the very same way. So for the very same reason people would fight someone who tries to impose on your belief, or moral, that murder is ok, religious people fight when people try to take their holy land, or the land given to them by god, that god told them to fight for, or go to war for.

In closing, it may seem to some people that religious people are "wackos" or "un sensible", or "irrational". But the truth is, they are acting the exact same as anyone else. The psychology behind their actions is the same.

 

[Swift]

That was all well and good, but it didn't answer my question. How can a belief in God not be faith?

 

[Duke]

In closing, it may seem to some people that religious people are "wackos" or "un sensible", or "irrational". But the truth is, they are acting the exact same as anyone else. The psychology behind their actions is the same. [emphasis added]

Sorry it is NOT the same psychology.

Confronted with the statement "We don't know exactly how X happened...", a logical/rational/scientific person says, "...yet!" A religious/nonlogical person says "...and we can't know, because God did it, and He works in mysterious ways!"

That's a pretty findamental difference in psychology: one type of person accepts some risk of 'not knowing' in exchange for relying on natural explanations. The other type of person eliminates all risk of 'not knowing' at the cost of unilaterally answering the question with a supernatural explanation and defining it as 'unknowable'.