Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast
Results 91 to 100 of 112

Thread: Absolute Logic

  1. #91
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    09-29-11 @ 11:32 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,671

    Re: Absolute Logic

    i expressed little in the way of "beliefs".

    it is beginning to look as though you have difficulty talking logically about anything. that is not an attempt to insult you, it is simply one way of expressing the view that you demonstrate no willingness to entertain reasoned arguments about the merits of reason. you dismiss reason in preference to "belief", "emotion", "instinct"... whatever term you like.

    but, in answer to your question, if one statement, dependent upon a prior statement is in accord with that prior statement it can be said to be logical. in the post above i attempted to do that. if that has led to a post that is overlong for most, my apologies.

    that we do not agree on the quantification of "art" does not mean that reason has no meaning. sorry.

    geo.

  2. #92
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 12:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    18,536
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Absolute Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Patric View Post
    i expressed little in the way of "beliefs".

    it is beginning to look as though you have difficulty talking logically about anything. that is not an attempt to insult you, it is simply one way of expressing the view that you demonstrate no willingness to entertain reasoned arguments about the merits of reason. you dismiss reason in preference to "belief", "emotion", "instinct"... whatever term you like.

    but, in answer to your question, if one statement, dependent upon a prior statement is in accord with that prior statement it can be said to be logical. in the post above i attempted to do that. if that has led to a post that is overlong for most, my apologies.

    that we do not agree on the quantification of "art" does not mean that reason has no meaning. sorry.

    geo.
    Actually, I'm trying to pinpoint exactly what terms like logic mean, because I've discovered multiple meanings from various books. I like to concretely understand things and should I make "mental mistakes" by ruminating and qeustioning everything so that I may learn, then so be it. The reason I question reason is because reason, it seems, is manyu different things depending on the time and place. I do value my perception of logic, as in knowledge and axioms, but I cannot merely cling to that and abandon my Apostolic/Pentecostal Christian faith. Currently I'm wanting to know why people believe what they post, and also if what they deem to be perfectly factual is indeed so. I respect you as an experienced user, and I do not mean to offend you.

  3. #93
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    05-17-18 @ 11:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    30,560

    Re: Absolute Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Patric
    no, i do not think that it is. further, i don't think you have given the matter as much thought as it deserves.
    In fact, I would argue the opposite, that believers have not given the matter as much thought as it deserves, they simply embrace it because it is emotionally comforting to them, regardless of whether or not it is logical, and especially whether or not it is factually true.

    that aside, "rational" means based on reason. with this very simple definition, it would seem impossible to derive rational behavior from irrational cause. but the fact is, MOST of what we do is NOT based on reason, or at least, not based on OUR reasonings.
    Whether or not most of what we do is based on reason doesn't mean that it shouldn't be. The fact is, for most arguments that are not already emotionally charged, we do use logic to evaluate the reasonableness of the claim. If I lose my car keys and I can't find them, is it logical to claim that leprechauns stole them? The vast majority of the population is going to look at that claim and conclude that it isn't rational or logical that such a claim is reasonable, based specifically on the fact that we have no reason to think leprechauns are real. Virtually no one has an emotional investment in claims of leprechauns to be true. However, if you change "leprechaun" to "devil", more people are going to accept that as a reasonable argument, even though there is no more evidence for the existence of a devil than there is for leprechauns. They are more emotionally invested in the existence of devils and demons than they are in the existence of leprechauns. It wasn't that many centuries ago when belief in leprechauns and fairies and the like were more widespread. That didn't make the claims about them any more reasonable then than they are now, nor does it make claims about gods reasonable today, just because they are widespread.

    If you want to argue that some people, even the majority of people, are stupid and gullible, I'll accept that, but it doesn't change the facts. There is still no evidence that any of these supposed gods exist. It doesn't matter how it makes someone feel, it doesn't matter how emotionally invested they are in the idea, the facts are the facts. I'm no more interested in people's emotional state over the existence of a god than I am over the existence of leprechauns or a flat earth or magical unicorns. I'm interested in the facts. Full stop.

    Hebrew dietary laws WERE rational, though they were not reasoned out as we would.. they had no accumulation of data regarding microbial infections.
    Sure they did. They observed that people who ate certain things got certain diseases more often. They had no idea why it happened, they just knew that it did. A rational idea would have been to tell people not to eat those foods, or not to eat them uncooked, whatever their observations were. Once you start tacking on "because this god said so", you leave rationality behind. No god told anyone anything. However, man's brain is hard-wired to seek out patterns and answers. In the absence of easily understandable answers, many people simply make something up because to do otherwise is emotionally uncomfortable. They don't like not knowing so they invent an explanation. Just because we are genetically predisposed to do it, however, doesn't make it rational. Luckily, we are able to overrule most of our mental hard-wiring, we can choose not to fall prey to emotionally comfortable ideas and keep looking until we find an actual explanation, rather than one that's convenient.

    our issue today, is that we KNOW the causes of most of those things which early peoples acribed to deities. that modern people continue to ascribe them to deities is irrational.
    That is true. However, that doesn't make the original attribution rational, only understandable. Today, it is not understandable why anyone would continue to do such a thing when we know better.

    irrational behavior that does not counter "good" is value neutral. irrational behavior that nonetheless produces "good" is still good... could be better, possibly, but still "good".
    I don't buy that it is value neutral. There was a time when people believed disease was caused by demons. Lots of people were cut up, tortured, starved and murdered to "get the demons out". Is that value neutral? Hell no! Getting back to your dietary restrictions, you have to remember there are places in the Middle East where they're taking those exact same dietary restrictions and using them as justification for slaughtering millions of pigs and outright banning pigs from some countries. Is that value neutral? Absolutely not! Even taking benign examples, you have people who are taking their religious views and trying to impose them on larger society, even people who do not share those views. Take the Blue Laws in the U.S. They still exist in some areas, and have only been done away with relatively recently in others. It is the imposition of a religious viewpoint upon a secular society by people who want to force their beliefs on everyone. Is that value neutral?

    Not a chance. There's no such thing as value neutral so long as the belief goes beyond the believer and invariably, it always does. It affects how a person acts in public, how they vote, how they raise their children, how they interact with society. Our beliefs always affect our actions. So long as one has irrational beliefs, one's actions will be, to one degree or another, irrational. That's not value neutral.

    criticizing a religion (qua that religion) is irrational. criticizing religious practice that produces good behavior is irrational. criticizing religious practices that produce harmful behavior is rational and moral. Criticizing Religion (capital "R" - as a social force, a political force) IS rational if we can conclude (as i frequently do) that is is detrimental to the rest of us.
    No it isn't, in fact I'd argue that it's rationally necessary. Take the fundamentalists who have been in the news on and off over the last couple of years, the ones who refuse medical treatment for their children. They are killing their kids. I can cite case after case after case of religious parents who might as well be slitting their kid's throat, they are no better than murderers in my eyes because they just watch their kids, kids who could have easily been saved had they sought treatment, wasting away to nothing. Just because you can point out practices which are not immediately and demonstrably harmful to people around the believer doesn't make the practices any more rational. Harmless does not mean valid.

    Criticizing a Roman Catholic for kneeling before a plaster statue... is not rational in my view. Criticizing a Roman Catholic adherent for attempting to impose his nonreasoned religious conclusions as policy for others is perfectly rational.
    Sure it is, that's not all they do. When you have a church which demonstrably protects pedophiles, which preaches against condoms in Africa, condoms which could have saved millions of people from contracting AIDS, a church that protected and supported the Nazi regime, and someone voluntarily keeps putting money into the collection plate on Sunday to keep supporting an institution like that, it's damn rational to criticize that. Catholics worldwide ought to be ashamed of themselves that they keep supporting this institution, yet they keep showing up and tossing away billions of dollars. Why? Because the church has them all scared that if they stop, they're going to go to an imaginary hellfire when they die. Stick around and you get paradise, leave and you get fried. It's that Pavlovian cycle that keeps those wallets opening and those people, the vast majority of whom have to know what their church is doing, tossing their hard-earned money away to support the system.

    And you think it's irrational to criticize that?
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! SpkOut me!

  4. #94
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    09-29-11 @ 11:32 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,671

    Re: Absolute Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    Actually, I'm trying to pinpoint exactly what terms like logic mean, because I've discovered multiple meanings from various books. I like to concretely understand things and should I make "mental mistakes" by ruminating and qeustioning everything so that I may learn, then so be it.
    then i owe you an apology and a dose of encouragement. keep going.
    The reason I question reason is because reason, it seems, is manyu different things depending on the time and place. I do value my perception of logic, as in knowledge and axioms, but I cannot merely cling to that and abandon my Apostolic/Pentecostal Christian faith.
    nor can i think of any reason that you should. reason and faith are not, in my view, wholly incompatible.
    Currently I'm wanting to know why people believe what they post, and also if what they deem to be perfectly factual is indeed so. I respect you as an experienced user, and I do not mean to offend you.
    don't worry about offending me.. i am tough. and i would hope you never withhold ideas that are important to you for fear of offending anyone.

    geo

  5. #95
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    09-29-11 @ 11:32 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,671

    Re: Absolute Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    In fact, I would argue the opposite,
    gotta head to work... be back later to read and respond. thanks for the great discussion.

    geo.

  6. #96
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    05-17-18 @ 11:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    30,560

    Re: Absolute Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Patric View Post
    reason and faith are not, in my view, wholly incompatible.
    It depends on what you have faith in. Although I dislike the usage of the word in this case, if you have "faith" in gravity and your "faith" is based on objective evidence, scientific measurements and understanding of the world around you, then certainly, your "faith" would be reasonable and rational. However, if you substituted faith in unicorns, without having any rational basis to support your faith, your faith would not be reasonable.

    It's sad that some people use the word "faith" loosely, to refer to any belief of any kind, and then try to transfer reasonable beliefs, based on rational evaluation, to anything anyone wants to believe in. That's blatantly dishonest.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! SpkOut me!

  7. #97
    Baby Eating Monster
    Korimyr the Rat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Cheyenne, WY
    Last Seen
    12-10-18 @ 07:03 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,308
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Absolute Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Geo Patric View Post
    good start. now, you wanna try to show that with a reasoned argument? or... is that simply a personal belief?
    Quote Originally Posted by Wake View Post
    How do we know this for sure?
    It's not an argument. It's a truism. It's just like a little kid asking "Why?"; every moral argument can be regressed indefinitely until someone breaks down and answers "because I said so" or "because God said so", which anyone who cares about logical arguments should recognize as not being logical arguments.
    "Love is at the root of everything. All learning, all relationships. Love, or the lack of it." - Mr. Rogers
    "When you see wickedness being done, take the offense against yourself, and give your enemies no peace." - Odin (Hávamál 126)

  8. #98
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    05-17-18 @ 11:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    30,560

    Re: Absolute Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir View Post
    It's not an argument. It's a truism. It's just like a little kid asking "Why?"; every moral argument can be regressed indefinitely until someone breaks down and answers "because I said so" or "because God said so", which anyone who cares about logical arguments should recognize as not being logical arguments.
    It's just an absurd position to take. It springs from the irrational idea that just because someone cannot absolutely prove beyond any doubt that something happened, or did not happen, that any cockamamie idea that they want to propose has just as much validity and chance to be true as the one that is supported by the evidence we do have.

    It's the last bastion of the uncritical thinker.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! SpkOut me!

  9. #99
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    09-29-11 @ 11:32 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,671

    Re: Absolute Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Viktyr Korimir View Post
    It's not an argument. It's a truism.
    dunno about that... YOU may accept it as a truism. i do not accept that " All premises in moral reasoning are based on emotion", nor would most moral philosophers. in fact, i would say that the most, perhaps ONLY truly legitimate moral reasoning is based on a rational understanding of what is beneficial.
    It's just like a little kid asking "Why?"; every moral argument can be regressed indefinitely until someone breaks down and answers "because I said so" or "because God said so", which anyone who cares about logical arguments should recognize as not being logical arguments.
    i am sorry, but that is nonsense.

    geo.
    Last edited by Geo Patric; 04-28-11 at 09:39 PM.

  10. #100
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    09-29-11 @ 11:32 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,671

    Re: Absolute Logic

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    It depends on what you have faith in. Although I dislike the usage of the word in this case, if you have "faith" in gravity and your "faith" is based on objective evidence, scientific measurements and understanding of the world around you, then certainly, your "faith" would be reasonable and rational. However, if you substituted faith in unicorns, without having any rational basis to support your faith, your faith would not be reasonable.

    It's sad that some people use the word "faith" loosely, to refer to any belief of any kind, and then try to transfer reasonable beliefs, based on rational evaluation, to anything anyone wants to believe in. That's blatantly dishonest.
    quick pop in... will get back to th elarger discourse tomorrrow... i ma starving, gonna bail and fill the tank. but, a lil clarification -

    i agree about 'switching' the meaning of faith ... drives me nuts. in these discussions, I do not use the word "faith" in the sense that "I believe in gravity", nor really would i ever say that.... i KNOW gravity exists. i do not use it in the casual colloquial sense of "i believe i will have a cheese sammitch for lunch". specifically, i intend it to mean what religious and other 'transcendant' type use it to mean... i use "faith" to mean an acceptance of a premise as true without any supporting evidence.

    be back tomorrow.

    geo.

Page 10 of 12 FirstFirst ... 89101112 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •