The Big Big Thread of Religious Discussion

[Archbio]

See? Logic!

Reality fuelled logic, you mean.

And no, we can't have that.

Also, you could also say that the logic exercice fails because its terms are ill-defined.

Also... I said "get over it" referring to a specific point he was getting hung up on, not "get over yourself".

Wrong pronoun. Two specific points. One point I only commented on once before you told me to "get over it" and repeated and reformulated your own opinion on that point in a handy, highschool logic textbook format, thereby not "getting over it".

[Fifthfiend]

Note fifthfiend - I did not use 'all' or 'some' any here, but its still a cohesive argument.

Actually no, it's not. Here, I don't have to go past line one.

Killing an innocent person is murder.

The killing of an innocent person can be a whole number of things including but by no means limited to murder. Yes, some killing is murder, but all killing is not murder. Therefore the rest of the proof absolutely does not follow.

Logic, again!

[Krylo]

So then, Swordchucks, you're saying that the failure of religion is not a logical one, but rather that the religious just really suck at facts?

Because that seems to be what I'm getting here, considering the only way you can make your 'logic can be wrong' statements work is by stating blatantly false premises and then continuing along that line of thought.

[adamark]

I disagree that killing is wrong.
I disagree that murder is wrong.
I disagree that people can be "innocent."
I disagree that "wrong" even exists.

All of these ideas about rights, innocense, goodness, wrongness--are based on beliefs. No one can convince me that any of it is true!

[Funka Genocide]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Well, there's Hindus.

Shit, you got me.

That reminds me of a recent trip I took to Mumbai India. I saw a bunch of scraggly looking cows just walking around the streets unmolested. I saw a lot of underfed, naked children wallowing in pools of brackish water by the roadside as well.

Here's a nifty little logical construct for you then.

cows are sacred
that which is sacred is inviolable
that which is inviolable should not be eaten
Indian children are malnourished

That should be enough information to get the point across, don't you think? What if your children were starving and a cow wandered by, would you think twice before slaughtering it for the survival of your family?

This is an illustration of the ridiculous nature of religion, look at this foreign example. I'll bet dollars to rupees that a Christian reading this reacts involuntarily by scoffing. How could such a travesty be allowed to occur? How could people be so ignorant?

Now look at the malnourishment of your own psyche, and think how I must look at you.

[I_Like_Swordchucks]

Originally Posted by fifthfiend

The killing of an innocent person can be a whole number of things including but by no means limited to murder. Yes, some killing is murder, but all killing is not murder. Therefore the rest of the proof absolutely does not follow.

And this makes me wrong how? The argument is still logically accurate. You're just proving my point that logically accurate does not necessarily equal right.

LOGICAL DOES NOT EQUAL VALID. LOGICAL EQUALS PROPER ARGUMENT CONSTRUCTION, SO ***IF*** ALL PREMISES ARE TRUE, THE CONCLUSION MUST BE TRUE. VALID MEANS THAT ALL PREMISES ARE TRUE, AND ARGUMENT IS LOGICAL, THEREFORE CONCLUSION IS TRUE.

Logic - The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method in deductive reasoning.

And QUIT IT with the I don't understand logic. I've said it many times in this forum before, I did an undergrad double major in biology and philosophy. I did several courses in logic, and got over 95% in every single one of them. I can post my bloody transcript if you want. YOU CAN BE LOGICAL AND STILL BE WRONG, BUT YOU CAN'T PROVE YOURSELF RIGHT WITHOUT LOGIC. How's that???

But either way, I give up. It comes across as impossible to argue with opponents who concede absolutely nothing, dispute absolutely everything, and make statements constantly dripping on condescension, and to be outnumbered besides. Have fun having an inter-atheist debate.

[Funka Genocide]

Originally Posted by I_Like_Swordchucks

And this makes me wrong how? The argument is still logically accurate. You're just proving my point that logically accurate does not necessarily equal right.

But either way, I give up. It comes across as impossible to argue with opponents who concede absolutely nothing, dispute absolutely everything, and make statements constantly dripping on condescension, and to be outnumbered besides. Have fun having an inter-atheist debate.

You just don't understand the meaning of logical, You get the point about the necessity of proper logical construction, but you're palcing too much emphasis on it.

Logic isn't just a stupid phrase game, every statement must be verifiably true for the entire thing to be true, just because a statement is constrcuted correctly doesn't make it true or logical Your examples are meaningless.

look, here's an example

All women are crazy
all crazy people like cheese
All women like cheese

see, properly constructed, but untrue. Not all crazy people like cheese, so it's a false statement.

now look at this one

all women are human
all human's are mammals
all women are mammals

see, this is true and thusly logical.

All I mean to say is that yous eem to be trying to disprove logic as a relaible method of dscering truth, and I find it funny that you're using logic to do that.

[Sithdarth]

Originally Posted by Swordchucks

LOGICAL DOES NOT EQUAL VALID. LOGICAL EQUALS PROPER ARGUMENT CONSTRUCTION, SO ***IF*** ALL PREMISES ARE TRUE, THE CONCLUSION MUST BE TRUE. VALID MEANS THAT ALL PREMISES ARE TRUE, AND ARGUMENT IS LOGICAL, THEREFORE CONCLUSION IS TRUE.

Logic does equal proper argument construction. Part of proper argument construction is using solid premises. In other words by using factual statements with no degree of freedom for opinion. Facts are by definition right. Therefore, using a premises that can be argued true or false is not in keeping with proper argument construction and therefore illogical.

Logic example:
Logic is the science of proper argument construction
Properly constructed arguments consist wholly of indisputable facts
Therefore logic contains only those arguments consisting wholly of indisputable facts.

Further:
Logic contains only those arguments consisting wholly of indisputable facts
Statements that can be taken as either true of false depending on view point are not indisputable
Therefor arguments consisting of statements that can be taken as either true or false are not logical

Edit: Basically in the absence of incontrovertible evidence its impossible to logically conclude anything about God or how the universe came to be.

[42PETUNIAS]

Originally Posted by Swordchucks

Um I don't get what you mean there. Could you clarify please?

Fixed, I edited my post.

[ZAKtheGeek]

Sheesh, this is getting out of hand. There's really nothing to argue about... logical derivations are only as valid as the assumptions you make. A theistic argument might go along the lines of, "There can be no infinite causal chains, therefore the universe must have a first cause," and it would be logical, but you could still argue against the postulated premise that there can be no infinite causal chains.