Many of the posters of my god pride themselves on their logicalness. At the same time, they scoff at the religious for their illogicalness. But the foundation of logic, the law of non-contradiction, is inherently circular; for to prove or disprove the law requires using the law itself. And so however certain the law is, any logical arguments for its acceptance (“the law is obviously useful, and anything useful should be accepted, thus we should accept the law”) are also begging the question. For them to point their fingers and laugh at those who believe in god on illogical grounds, then, is almost as absurd as those believers who misunderstand their religion and attempt to prove it.

In the end, these two groups of people create an argument that will never end. My God is an example of this argument of who is right, and in posting a thread in it, I have committed myself to illogicalness too. But I am tired of playing the role of the rationalist or irrationalist, which are the only two roles this forum allows, and for that reason, on the case of who is right, I commit myself to quietism and moved on to the Humanities, where an infinite field of exploration is possible. My last comment on the topic of religion shall be this: I don’t truly believe, but I still prayer, in private, where prayer means something.

So logic does not exist?

Theists are accepting the law of non-contradiction as soon as they type. If they don't want to type...

So logic does not exist?

My point was not ontological, but ethical.

My point was not ontological, but ethical.

Couldn't your point translate to every other use of logic?

We need a whole human not a fragment one but most are divided even in their own minds that they have set up the reality of there illusion that they are right and that they are full and that they are real! There are very few whole humans out there sadly and the fragmented will continue to argue. Hell Im arguing at times so dont think Im implying that "I am Whole!"

Many of the posters of my god pride themselves on their logicalness. At the same time, they scoff at the religious for their illogicalness. But the foundation of logic, the law of non-contradiction, is inherently circular; for to prove or disprove the law requires using the law itself. And so however certain the law is, any logical arguments for its acceptance (“the law is obviously useful, and anything useful should be accepted, thus we should accept the law”) are also begging the question. For them to point their fingers and laugh at those who believe in god on illogical grounds, then, is almost as absurd as those believers who misunderstand their religion and attempt to prove it.

In the end, these two groups of people create an argument that will never end. My God is an example of this argument of who is right, and in posting a thread in it, I have committed myself to illogicalness too. But I am tired of playing the role of the rationalist or irrationalist, which are the only two roles this forum allows, and for that reason, on the case of who is right, I commit myself to quietism and moved on to the Humanities, where an infinite field of exploration is possible. My last comment on the topic of religion shall be this: I don’t truly believe, but I still prayer, in private, where prayer means something.

Respect.

I don't see what's there to respect about a thread that's consists of a sweeping generalization (i.e. "this forum only allows two roles") and a parody of those who "pride themselves on their logicalness".

1. I don't see how this forum allows only two roles except where he says it does.

Even if I grant him that it does so currently, then I still don't see how that's a reason to leave the forum instead of trying to change the state of affairs.

2. Arguably the theist agrees with the law of non-contradiction as soon as he speaks or acts in a way that distinguishes one thing from another. I would therefore say that it is not "absurd" as he claims, to point out any possible inconsistency in the application of the law of non-contradiction - or any rule of inference derived from it.

Even if I grant him that it does so currently, then I still don't see how that's a reason to leave the forum instead of trying to change the state of affairs.

He's not really leaving. He's made the statement "I'm leaving this forum" before, yet here we find ourselves, in one of his threads.

He's not really leaving. He's made the statement "I'm leaving this forum" before, yet here we find ourselves, in one of his threads.

On the contrary, I simply don't want people to think I am like members like Brokeprophet, because I left because of ArmsMerchant, Hexadecimal, Vanhalla and Obbe. Now, on my actual post, the fact that BrokeProphet is asking the questions he is proves that he either hasn't read my post or doesn't understand it; as for rust, he is making statements about the law of contradiction that are implicit in my post, i.e. statements that I made myself.

as for rust, he is making statements about the law of contradiction that are implicit in my post, i.e. statements that I made myself.

All the more reason why your complaint against those who "pride themselves on their logicalness" is utterly ridiculous.

All the more reason why your complaint against those who "pride themselves on their logicalness" is utterly ridiculous.

So you say, but you haven't shown why.

I believe I have:

"Arguably the theist agrees with the law of non-contradiction as soon as he speaks or acts in a way that distinguishes one thing from another. I would therefore say that it is not "absurd" as he claims, to point out any possible inconsistency in the application of the law of non-contradiction - or any rule of inference derived from it."

I believe I have:

"Arguably the theist agrees with the law of non-contradiction as soon as he speaks or acts in a way that distinguishes one thing from another. I would therefore say that it is not "absurd" as he claims, to point out any possible inconsistency in the application of the law of non-contradiction - or any rule of inference derived from it."

There is a difference between someone showing someone that their beliefs or arguments are circular and that same someone "point[ing] their fingers and laugh[ing] at those who believe in god on illogical grounds", i.e. being namecalling and condescending, when their own belief system is inherently circular. The term for calling someone insane for being illogical when your own system begs the question is called hypocrisy ("my point was not ontological, but ethical"). The fact that the law is forced upon the likes of BrokeProphet doesn't remove the hypocrisy (especially when they treat Christianity as a virus acquired at an early age), and in fact shows how idiotic it is for them to be proud about something they didn't achieve, but was thrust upon them.

P.S., I agree that I exaggerated on the rationalist and the irrationalist being the only two roles possible in My God.

Except their belief system isn't circular (or at least that fact is meaningless) in the context of the conversation, because the theist already takes the law of non-contradiction axiomatically as soon as he speaks! Calling someone insane for not consistently applying the LNC might be rude, insensitive, and a long list of other things, but hypocritical isn't really one of them; there is only one standard being set: 'apply the LNC consistently throughout the conversation since you took it as true the moment you spoke'. That's the one and only standard. The origins of the "truth" of the LNC being circular does not suddenly mean there are two standards being set (and thus hypocrisy taking place); it being circular only means neither of them can prove it, which is not important in conversations where the LNC is taken as true!

Now if you want to leave because of the 'name calling and condescending' then fine, that's unfortunate, but you're free to do so. I just don't see how 'Humanities' is any different, or how leaving accomplishes anything.

P.S. What's the term for silencing two whole topics of discussion in a forum (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2073781) and then attempting to take the ethical high road in another? :)

Point taken.

And in a moment of freedom, he put the shackles back on. Why? You decided to leave a completely pointless argument...and are back for what reason? Invalidity of stated motivation does not invalidate the overall motivation to leave. You're sick of endless circularity where nobody budges and refuses to hear any side, right?

This ridiculous bullshit of a forum, My God, will be no different five months from now than it is right now, whether you leave or not. It's a faith issue for one side saying it's better to believe, and a logic issue for the other saying it's better to doubt. That allows no room for progress if neither is willing to synthesize perspectives (which they assuredly won't), and you saw it, knew it...even knew it to be a waste and mutually destructive to both parties. Why? Why stay?

Why come here and waste time presenting a view point to others if it's instantly cast aside so long as the status quo produces a tolerable life?

Constructive ideas do not enlighten the self-destructive mind...you happen to have constructive ideas. For fuck's sake, go do something great with your life...you have the mindset for it. Quit wasting your time trying to open the minds of people that spend their lives fortifying their mental security system of fears and rationalizations.*

Putting aside my past trollings in this forum, I hope you see the merit in this post as one human to another.

*Yes Rust, that's you. It's why I tend to pick on you a bit more than others...you're so fucking insane that every reaction is entirely predictable. "I am Rust the atheo-agnostobot. Let me accuse you of every flawed argument method in existence because I don't like to think of your premise as possible while I use the same flawed arguments you do. Oh no, they pointed it out, I must resort to ad-homs and then blame the other guy when he replies the same. I get to always be right so long as I present my arguments in a slightly distorted manner that holds artificial merit through unsupported criticism and baited accusations."

^
Alright, so it's not spot on, but just about. Really Hare, go do something good for yourself and the world with what you have. Convince people with the evidence of a concept working in your life, not the concept prior to practicing it. GO!

On the contrary, I simply don't want people to think I am like members like Brokeprophet, because I left because of ArmsMerchant, Hexadecimal, Vanhalla and Obbe. Now, on my actual post, the fact that BrokeProphet is asking the questions he is proves that he either hasn't read my post or doesn't understand it; as for rust, he is making statements about the law of contradiction that are implicit in my post, i.e. statements that I made myself.

I thought I understood what you were saying. That since logic is founded upon the law of contradiction (which is neither verifiable nor falsifiable, on the ground that any proof or disproof must use the law itself) using logic to point out problems of theistic beliefs, is something to be frowned upon.

If this isn't what you meant then I apologize.

If it is what you meant, then you are also free and able to chatise ANY other use of logic that shows something to be illogical. Which all in all is a rather senseless point to make....

So your entire OP here seems to be nothing but a jab at me, some others who see your wisdom as nothing more than well memorized and regurgitated statments, my God, and eventually Richard Dawkin's idea of memetics. If this be the case, feel free to name drop, talk over most everyone's head and essentialy get up your own ass in humanties all day long, dear Hare.

Take your ball and go home. :)

I thought I understood what you were saying. That since logic is founded upon the law of contradiction (which is neither verifiable nor falsifiable, on the ground that any proof or disproof must use the law itself) using logic to point out problems of theistic beliefs, is something to be frowned upon.

My point was not that you shouldn’t point out the circularity of other people’s beliefs. My point was that it is hypocritical to literally call that someone insane or mentally ill when what you yourself hold dearly, logic, is founded upon something that cannot be proved and which any attempt to prove results in circularity; unless, of course, you accept that you yourself are insane too and in need of counselling.

So your entire OP here seems to be nothing but a jab at me, some others who see your wisdom as nothing more than well memorized and regurgitated statments, my God, and eventually Richard Dawkin's idea of memetics. If this be the case, feel free to name drop, talk over most everyone's head and essentialy get up your own ass in humanties all day long, dear Hare.

I am bemused and amused by this, because I never understood the accusations of namedropping. If I am discussing a philosopher or philosophical school of thought, of course I am going to mention their names. And if I agree with a philosopher, I would much rather give his name than the impression that I came up with his ideas myself. I could care less whether someone admires originality over unoriginality (a romantic notion, since some of the greats were but mostly humble interpreters: Plotinus, for instance, says I, as I drop a name), I am much more concerned about what is the truth.

This ridiculous bullshit of a forum, My God, will be no different five months from now than it is right now, whether you leave or not. It's a faith issue for one side saying it's better to believe, and a logic issue for the other saying it's better to doubt. That allows no room for progress if neither is willing to synthesize perspectives (which they assuredly won't), and you saw it, knew it...even knew it to be a waste and mutually destructive to both parties.

This ridiculous bullshit of a forum doesn't exist for the sole purpose of synthesizing perspectives - it's for laying out perspectives, swapping commentary and loose debate.

You say it allows no room for progress. I ask you: What would you define as progress? Synthesizing perspectives is something you assure us will never happen. Why do you continue to post here if you feel it's a waste, and destructive to you? Are your intellectual sensibilities not quite as delicate as Hare's? Are you also offended when others seem as steadfast in their positions as you are, unwilling to budge or be influenced by others?

I've been visiting this forum for six, nearly seven years - and I dare say, the appeal to me is the non-synchronizing of perspectives. Just because every opinion put forth here isn't warmly embraced by everyone involved does not mean that discourse is completely wasted. To me, it closely imitates real life diversity in belief, and is a very accurate representation of how despite our differences, we still belong together. Our opinions might be divided, but the lines drawn in the sand disappear each time we engage one another in discussion and are forced (so to speak) to recognize another human perspective unlike our own.

Can't take the heat? Then get outta the kitchen. But don't be surprised when the aroma draws you back in, hungry for more. My bet says that you or Hare either one won't be able to resist occasionally getting a bellyful of discussion when you detect that you might possibly be able to influence another human being with your 'signature' perspective.

*Yes Rust, that's you. It's why I tend to pick on you a bit more than others...you're so fucking insane that every reaction is entirely predictable. "I am Rust the atheo-agnostobot. Let me accuse you of every flawed argument method in existence because I don't like to think of your premise as possible while I use the same flawed arguments you do. Oh no, they pointed it out, I must resort to ad-homs and then blame the other guy when he replies the same. I get to always be right so long as I present my arguments in a slightly distorted manner that holds artificial merit through unsupported criticism and baited accusations."

You obsession with me is funny and the fact that I bother you so much is also funny. Thanks!

P.S. I should point out the irony in you name calling and condescending when that's his reason for leaving the forum! Good job!

My point was not that you shouldn’t point out the circularity of other people’s beliefs. My point was that it is hypocritical to literally call that someone insane or mentally ill when what you yourself hold dearly, logic, is founded upon something that cannot be proved and which any attempt to prove results in circularity; unless, of course, you accept that you yourself are insane too and in need of counselling.

So, if you use logic to point out that someone is crazy, you are a hypocrite, and crazy yourself?

Bullshit.

Methinks you are reaching.

So, if you use logic to point out that someone is crazy, you are a hypocrite, and crazy yourself?

That is a misrepresentation or misreading. I can count numerous times when you and others have called Christians crazy for simply holding illogical beliefs and principles. Now if you say this without admitting that logic, which you put up on a pedestal, is itself grounded on illogicality, and that therefore you yourself are mentally ill, then you are a hypocrite.

then you are a hypocrite.

No he is not. At least not in a conversation where both parties have agreed to the LNC. When both parties take the LNC as true, they agree that the truth of the law and whether it's circular or not, is not important. Thus, the only question is not about the origins of the truth of the law, but whether or not it's consistently applied. It is not hypocritical to point out if one party does not consistently apply it, nor it is hypocritical to insult someone if they don't. It might be in poor taste, it might be immature, it might be a lot of bad things, but hypocritical is not one of them.

That is a misrepresentation or misreading. I can count numerous times when you and others have called Christians crazy for simply holding illogical beliefs and principles. Now if you say this without admitting that logic, which you put up on a pedestal, is itself grounded on illogicality, and that therefore you yourself are mentally ill, then you are a hypocrite.

Are we to admit that we ourselves are mentally ill when we claim that a certain scientific hypothesis is false because we use logic? I thought Rust had already been over this: if you want to talk about the foundations of logic, you can stay in humanities and deconstruct it all you want, but in the real world we take this thing for granted and leave the fundamentals to the philosophers, who as BP once eloquently said, "are still wondering whether that tree actually fell".

Are we to admit that we ourselves are mentally ill when we claim that a certain scientific hypothesis is false because we use logic? I thought Rust had already been over this: if you want to talk about the foundations of logic, you can stay in humanities and deconstruct it all you want, but in the real world we take this thing for granted and leave the fundamentals to the philosophers, who as BP once eloquently said, "are still wondering whether that tree actually fell".

I took rust's point, but that doesn't stop me from making sure people don't misread or misrepresent my own point, simply because it is wrong. And I was kind of hoping the argument would have the converse effect to people diagnosing themselves as mentally ill because they use the law of non-contradiction. I was hoping it would stop people from childishly giving the religious ersatz-diagnoses.

I took rust's point, but that doesn't stop me from making sure people don't misread or misrepresent my own point, simply because it is wrong. And I was kind of hoping the argument would have the converse effect to people diagnosing themselves as mentally ill because they use the law of non-contradiction. I was hoping it would stop people from childishly giving the religious ersatz-diagnoses.

What happens if you take the LNC as false? Simply put, you can't because that in itself would take logic. And even if you could, what kind of discussions would you be able to have? Those who don't use logic tend to be classified as mentally ill, so in fact, those who accept the LNC would be the intellectually superior ones.That's the essence of this long post I was going to type out but alas I have a dentist appointment.

You obsession with me is funny and the fact that I bother you so much is also funny. Thanks!

P.S. I should point out the irony in you name calling and condescending when that's his reason for leaving the forum! Good job!

Holy shit...he might be catching on to something...

And to AF:

Why do you continue to post here if you feel it's a waste, and destructive to you?

My statement's of My God's wastefulness and destructiveness stems not from the presentation of conflicting ideologies that find no acceptance, but from the absurd belief that doing so creates progress. Arguing with someone in order to achieve progress is like slamming your head into a brick wall until you faint, waking up, and repeating the action as if some day you'll stop having concussions and find some vast reward for the tremendous level of self abuse involved.

I'm not here to achieve any progress. I'm not here to convince anybody. I'm not here to better understand their beliefs, or my own, or anything else. I'm here to waste some time in between real life activities that actually do achieve progress, produce attraction rather than promotion, and actually help me understand both my self and the world around me.

I am what would be commonly called a troll.

*Arguing in the background* LoL, its never a dull day on these forums... *The sound of Punches*

All problems stem from a lack of understanding and fear of being wrong.

Holy shit...he might be catching on to something...


What's there to catch on? That you're a troll? You've said it numerous times before. So what? You say stupid shit, so I call it stupid shit. It's that easy.

Why should I care if you're so pathetic? :confused:

What happens if you take the LNC as false? Simply put, you can't because that in itself would take logic. And even if you could, what kind of discussions would you be able to have? Those who don't use logic tend to be classified as mentally ill, so in fact, those who accept the LNC would be the intellectually superior ones.That's the essence of this long post I was going to type out but alas I have a dentist appointment.

Why hasn't anyone figured out that my post was not saying anything about whether logic should be accepted or rejected? And it hardly surprises me that irrationality is considered a symptom of mental illness, considering it is BrokeProphet's ilk who got to define it in the 17th and 18th century. Yet Saint Thomas Aquinas probably has more reason in his little pinky than the likes of BrokeProphet have in their entire body.

Why hasn't anyone figured out that my post was not saying anything about whether logic should be accepted or rejected? And it hardly surprises me that irrationality is considered a symptom of mental illness, considering it is BrokeProphet's ilk who got to define it in the 17th and 18th century. Yet Saint Thomas Aquinas probably has more reason in his little pinky than the likes of BrokeProphet have in their entire body.

What I got from your first post was a criticism of prejudiced thinking leading to hypocrisies. I might be wrong, though.

Arguably the theist agrees with the law of non-contradiction as soon as he speaks or acts in a way that distinguishes one thing from another.

How so? What if they also reject the use of disjunctive syllogisms?

How so? What if they also reject the use of disjunctive syllogisms?

Reject as opposed to what? Accepting them? Then they are already making distinctions...

Really, my comment was more of allusion to Aristotle's argument for taking the LNC axiomatically - which I was guessing he knew because he's very well-read. It seems that he knows it, and agrees with it.

What I mean is, if a person makes a single distinction, how does that commit them to the position that the law of non-contradiction holds in all cases?

I thought you might be referring to the principle of explosion, which can be contained by rejecting disjunctive syllogisms.

LNC works wonderfully if you are unwilling to understand the paradox. Once you've understood a single paradox, LNC loses all utility and falls to its death.

If you see that weakness is strength then LNC has lost all merit: reason is illogical, logic is unreasonable, faith is atheism, freedom is slavery, servitude is mastery, etc.

The problem with LNC and all subsequent logic rule is that it entirely disables an unreasonable or illogical conclusion from being accepted, even if the logically false answer is true. This can only happen because logic is based upon a non-logical foundation, which makes the rules of the system inconsistent with the system itself. Logic is the sole violator of logic.

And to AF:

Why do you continue to post here if you feel it's a waste, and destructive to you?

My statement's of My God's wastefulness and destructiveness stems not from the presentation of conflicting ideologies that find no acceptance, but from the absurd belief that doing so creates progress.

You're the only one in this entire thread who mentioned anything about progress. I think you're pulling absurd beliefs out of your butt, Hex.

I'm not here to achieve any progress.

Anyone who is clearly has their work cut out for them.

I'm not here to convince anybody. I'm not here to better understand their beliefs, or my own, or anything else. I'm here to waste some time in between real life activities that actually do achieve progress, produce attraction rather than promotion, and actually help me understand both my self and the world around me.

Right on. But that's not the characteristics of a troll.

I am what would be commonly called a troll.

Define it accordingly, at least. Are you just here to rile people up? Is your entire internet persona just a trick? Is Hexadecimal as we know him a make-believe character? That's how I regard a troll.

What I mean is, if a person makes a single distinction, how does that commit them to the position that the law of non-contradiction holds in all cases?


You're right; it technically doesn't.
However, like I said, my point was to allude to an argument I assumed Hare would know. He seems to agree with the argument so, at least withing my conversation with him, my point was made.

Why hasn't anyone figured out that my post was not saying anything about whether logic should be accepted or rejected? And it hardly surprises me that irrationality is considered a symptom of mental illness, considering it is BrokeProphet's ilk who got to define it in the 17th and 18th century. Yet Saint Thomas Aquinas probably has more reason in his little pinky than the likes of BrokeProphet have in their entire body.

I think if you read into a bit more, you'll find that what you meant to say stems directly from what I'm trying to discuss here. No philosophy is infallible.

Isn't the synthesis of two opposing ideas a form of progression, AF? Whether it achieves a goal one sees as positive or negative will create the judgment of progression versus regression, but it's still progress by definition. It is change.

Isn't the synthesis of two opposing ideas a form of progression, AF? Whether it achieves a goal one sees as positive or negative will create the judgment of progression versus regression, but it's still progress by definition. It is change.

The idea behind Thesis + Antithesis = Synthesis is in a crude understanding is supposed to create the path of truth, but sometimes it does not always work if one used it to (dis)prove the existence of God you cant really get anywhere there is zero ground, you are at the beginning again:

Its like saying 1 + (-1) = 0 LoL, not much progress....

Unless, you take the dual perspective, God does and Does not exist, but to even try to concieve of the thought gives me migraines.

Unless, we treat this like a lawsuit where the Plantiff (Thesis) + Defendent (AntiThesis) are the two opposing cases for something and instead of trying to win the case try and reach an agreement which is what Synthesis is about: Agreement on something not trying to be the victor.

These are just ideas, there not my official stance its like from the scrapbook of my mind, just tinkering.

1 + (-1) = 0

Sweet Jesus, never thought the secret to reality would reveal itself in this thread.

Sweet Jesus, never thought the secret to reality would reveal itself in this thread.

Man... This secret is more dissapointing than 42 :(

Well I must of tripped over a stupid landmine... The understanding of this whole Thesis, Antithesis and Synthesis idea is crude to say the least. I can admit that I could just be rambling on.

Don't read too much into the title. It is the way it is because I am no good at making them.

My point was not that you shouldn’t point out the circularity of other people’s beliefs. My point was that it is hypocritical to literally call that someone insane or mentally ill when what you yourself hold dearly, logic, is founded upon something that cannot be proved and which any attempt to prove results in circularity; unless, of course, you accept that you yourself are insane too and in need of counselling..





SO you apparent fuck head...............you can never (by your logic) call someone insane?

Tell me, when it is appropriate (by your logic) to call someone insane, and I will tell you (by your own logic) why you are wronf.

Just b/c your parents felt that your homosexuality neeeded counselng and that you are crazy should not blind you to the rest of the ENTIRE fucking world.....

^Had a good night down at the pub?

SO you apparent fuck head...............you can never (by your logic) call someone insane?

Tell me, when it is appropriate (by your logic) to call someone insane, and I will tell you (by your own logic) why you are wronf.

Just b/c your parents felt that your homosexuality neeeded counselng and that you are crazy should not blind you to the rest of the ENTIRE fucking world.....

I'm just going to quote this so everyone can see how stupid you really are.

Don't read too much into the title. It is the way it is because I am no good at making them.

ready, set, go? Sure keep that in mind next time... lol *uneasy laughter*

I'm just going to quote this so everyone can see how stupid you really are.

I will just keep saying this:

Tell me, when it is appropriate (by your logic) to call someone insane, and I will tell you (by your own logic) why you are wrong.

until you answer it (that is if you can without seeming like a complete douche).

I will just keep saying this:

Tell me, when it is appropriate (by your logic) to call someone insane, and I will tell you (by your own logic) why you are wrong.

until you answer it (that is if you can without seeming like a complete douche).

I am not going to bother responding to the question, because it is entirely beside the point.

I am not going to bother responding to the question, because it is entirely beside the point.

Sure...

Since when do you not like an oppurtunity to prattle on?

When your wrong.

Sure...

Since when do you not like an oppurtunity to prattle on?

When your wrong.

I admitted I was wrong to rust, yet I continued to post in this thread, primarily to make it very clear what my argument was. And yet you still don't seem to understand it, that, or you are purposely misrepresenting it. Either way, I cannot be bothered to go around in circles with the likes of you.

I admitted I was wrong to rust, yet I continued to post in this thread, primarily to make it very clear what my argument was. And yet you still don't seem to understand it, that, or you are purposely misrepresenting it. Either way, I cannot be bothered to go around in circles with the likes of you.

Just tell me, when it is appropriate (by your logic) to call someone insane?

Correct me if I am wrong or misrepresenting, but I think the only logical answer to that question (using your logic) is never.

Which I don't agree with.

HARE_GEIST (Otherwise known as Raw_Power):


Could not go gently into that good night, eh?

Let me see if I've got this straight: you think you've discovered that the theology debate is circular (many great thinkers before you came to this conclusion, and I suspect that whatever author you are currently reading is heavily influencing this shift in you) and thus no longer deserving of your attention, regardless of it's infinite importance in the grand scheme of things...so, you've just wasted a couple of years of your life, then? Should we feel privileged to have witnessed such a great epiphanous time in your life?

The wonderful thing about Tiggers is...wait, no. I mean, the wonderful thing about Humanities is, you can ride the fence until your last breath escapes you, and you will not be held to any moral standard, nor will you be ostracized for the neutrality of your proverbial garments. This has always been a significant flaw in your arguments here in the religious forum, where the arguments of fence sitters are not generally well-received because they are virtually undebatable.

I find it somewhat telling of your character that you feel the need to announce your departure from this forum, and shamelessly advertise where you intend to spend the majority of your time henceforth. Do you really think you are that important to this forum? Or are you simply too narcissistic to really care what anyone else thinks, but rather see totse as a stage upon which you are welcome to play at any time you see fit for purposes of mental masturbation?

Lastly, post-modernist bullshit FTMFL.

Sure...

Since when do you not like an oppurtunity to prattle on?

When your wrong.

I do have to say that this individual has hit the nail on the head on this one, Hare_Geist.

Ya need to work on your poker face, son. ;)

HARE_GEIST (Otherwise known as Raw_Power):


Could not go gently into that good night, eh?

Let me see if I've got this straight: you think you've discovered that the theology debate is circular (many great thinkers before you came to this conclusion, and I suspect that whatever author you are currently reading is heavily influencing this shift in you) and thus no longer deserving of your attention, regardless of it's infinite importance in the grand scheme of things...so, you've just wasted a couple of years of your life, then? Should we feel privileged to have witnessed such a great epiphanous time in your life?
You should feel whatever the fuck you want to feel, he was simply pointing out how the foundation of discussion on religion is quite simply not there (though there are two consenting parties willing to take that initial leap).

The wonderful thing about Tiggers is...wait, no. I mean, the wonderful thing about Humanities is, you can ride the fence until your last breath escapes you, and you will not be held to any moral standard, nor will you be ostracized for the neutrality of your proverbial garments. This has always been a significant flaw in your arguments here in the religious forum, where the arguments of fence sitters are not generally well-received because they are virtually undebatable.
...and? Because you can't debate what he says does that make it wrong? For all you know, debating something is exactly what makes anything debatable wrong in the first place and we should only base logic on things one knows (which essentially requires fence-sitting). Who cares how much you don't like fence-sitting; it's his position and you should treat it like any position you find here since it is a position in stark contrast to that of your own. "You're just a no-good fence-sitter" doesn't even come close to being an argument. Not taking a side might be inconvenient (at least mentally), but fortunately there are those of us here who can handle a little heat and understand that not everything is set into good-bad, right-wrong.

I find it somewhat telling of your character that you feel the need to announce your departure from this forum, and shamelessly advertise where you intend to spend the majority of your time henceforth. Do you really think you are that important to this forum? Or are you simply too narcissistic to really care what anyone else thinks, but rather see totse as a stage upon which you are welcome to play at any time you see fit for purposes of mental masturbation?

Lastly, post-modernist bullshit FTMFL.

I think he mentioned several times that his post was mainly to get people thinking about the LNC and how it applies to this forum, with his au revoir only serving as a secondary purpose (largely drawing from the first one). If you didn't like his post, criticize his purpose, but we're all guilty of using totse at least partially as our own personal blog. Shit, I made a blog-ish thread today, but since it had a primary purpose I have yet to get flamed out by people who nitpick on tiny things in other people's posts that are essentially irrelevant to the big picture. People like you, D_S.

Lastly, post-modernist bullshit FTMFL.

I am surprised that you have reacted the way you have, since I was essentially defending the religious. Again, my point was that religion has been called a mental illness on the basis of its illogicality by people who pride themselves upon their logicality, yet logic itself is based on a law that is circular and cannot be proven, thus they must either accept that they themselves are mentally ill or that illogicality is not a criterion for classifying the religious as mentally ill. I did not need to take a position on whether or not logic should be accepted, because it was beside the point, just as whether BrokeProphet can show me my criteria for classifying someone as mentally ill is wrong is beside the point.

I do have to say that this individual has hit the nail on the head on this one, Hare_Geist.

But he hasn't. I openly admitted I was wrong near the beginning of the thread, and I am still here posting.

(many great thinkers before you came to this conclusion, and I suspect that whatever author you are currently reading is heavily influencing this shift in you)

I still don't get why people think that this kind of accusation would bother me. Look:

I am bemused and amused by this, because I never understood the accusations of namedropping. If I am discussing a philosopher or philosophical school of thought, of course I am going to mention their names. And if I agree with a philosopher, I would much rather give his name than the impression that I came up with his ideas myself. I could care less whether someone admires originality over unoriginality (a romantic notion, since some of the greats were but mostly humble interpreters: Plotinus, for instance, says I, as I drop a name), I am much more concerned about what is the truth.

I am going to ignore the rest of your post. You can find someone else to play your games with (the word "games" should really be singular, since you only know one: ring around the roses, a pocket full of charges).

I think OP may be falling prey to the dualistic fallacy--or at least confusing logic with rationality.

They is two different critters.

I am surprised that you have reacted the way you have, since I was essentially defending the religious. Again, my point was that religion has been called a mental illness on the basis of its illogicality by people who pride themselves upon their logicality, yet logic itself is based on a law that is circular and cannot be proven, thus they must either accept that they themselves are mentally ill or that illogicality is not a criterion for classifying the religious as mentally ill. I did not need to take a position on whether or not logic should be accepted, because it was beside the point, just as whether BrokeProphet can show me my criteria for classifying someone as mentally ill is wrong is beside the point.

But he hasn't. I openly admitted I was wrong near the beginning of the thread, and I am still here posting.

I enjoy you repeating your point, and then admitting your wrong. Fucking classy...

Your criteria for classifying someone as mentally ill IS YOUR WHOLE POINT. It is NOT beside it. In what abstract world is it beside the fucking point?

No matter, take your ball and go home. Your loosely disguised attack on what you dub "Dawkinism" has been thwarted.

I enjoy you repeating your point, and then admitting your wrong. Fucking classy...

I have also said several times in this thread that I am repeating myself because I do not like my point being misrepresented (even if it is wrong), and no one except a few people seem to get what I am saying.

Your criteria for classifying someone as mentally ill IS YOUR WHOLE POINT. It is NOT beside it. In what abstract world is it beside the fucking point?

You can say that, but it doesn't make it true. I was simply showing what follows from someone else's criteria, I was in no way saying that that criteria, or any criteria for that matter, is correct or false.

You can say that, but it doesn't make it true. I was simply showing what follows from someone else's criteria, I was in no way saying that that criteria, or any criteria for that matter, is correct or false.

If I accept that a person using logic to show another to be illogical and then defining them as insane........it does not matter if we are talking about atheist calling theists insane, or a doctor calling a psychopath insane.

I don't have to address what you bring up. I accept it, and conclude nobody can be called insane, using logic to show illogical behavior, without accepting their own insanity.

Now that I have accepted your theory, and applied it, how does it look? Yeah, I thought it looked half baked and bullshitty as well.

Now that I have accepted your theory, and applied it, how does it look? Yeah, I thought it looked half baked and bullshitty as well.

But it is perfectly valid: (1) if your beliefs are illogical, e.g. circular, then you are insane; (2) all "proofs" of the law of non-contradiction are circular, (3) therefore anyone who believes in the law of non-contradiction is insane. I guess you will have to reject premise one as unsound then.

But it is perfectly valid: (1) if your beliefs are illogical, e.g. circular, then you are insane; (2) all "proofs" of the law of non-contradiction are circular, (3) therefore anyone who believes in the law of non-contradiction is insane. I guess you will have to reject premise one as unsound then.

No hare, I dont reject any of it.

I accept it, and conclude nobody can be called insane, using logic to show illogical behavior, without accepting their own insanity.

A 40 year old white man living in nevada has the illogical belief that he is queen elizabeth the II. If I use logic to tell him that this is not so, and use logic to tell him he is insane, I must accept the fact that I am crazy as well.

You should publish this theory in a scientific magazine, it truly revolutionizes the way people are classified as insane. Congrats.

No hare, I dont reject any of it.

I accept it, and conclude nobody can be called insane, using logic to show illogical behavior, without accepting their own insanity.

A 40 year old white man living in nevada has the illogical belief that he is queen elizabeth the II. If I use logic to tell him that this is not so, and use logic to tell him he is insane, I must accept the fact that I am crazy as well.

You should publish this theory in a scientific magazine, it truly revolutionizes the way people are classified as insane. Congrats.

Good for you on finally accepting what you are. I can recommend several therapists (all insane, naturally), if you wish. You should go to one, I think your insanity is making you confuse reason and logic (terrible mistake, right, ArmsMerchant?).

Good for you on finally accepting what you are. I can recommend several therapists (all insane, naturally), if you wish. You should go to one, I think your insanity is making you confuse reason and logic (terrible mistake, right, ArmsMerchant?).

Can you recommend therapists by name, Hare? I KNOW you can. How many times did you wash your hands today, or does your OCD take that form? Does your therapist still think faggots are insane, or that faggotry is some form of insanity? Does your family?

Since you have been labeled insane in your past, Hare, I can almost sympathize with your feelings towards that label, were it not for your elitist, prickish attitude.

Good for you on finally accepting what you are. I can recommend several therapists (all insane, naturally), if you wish. You should go to one, I think your insanity is making you confuse reason and logic (terrible mistake, right, ArmsMerchant?).

Now that's just insanity.

The problem with LNC and all subsequent logic rule is that it entirely disables an unreasonable or illogical conclusion from being accepted, even if the logically false answer is true. This can only happen because logic is based upon a non-logical foundation, which makes the rules of the system inconsistent with the system itself. Logic is the sole violator of logic.
This is all wrong. You used logic to figure it out. :o

This is all wrong. You used logic to figure it out. :o

Ain't this FUN?!

Can you recommend therapists by name, Hare? I KNOW you can. How many times did you wash your hands today, or does your OCD take that form? Does your therapist still think faggots are insane, or that faggotry is some form of insanity? Does your family?

Since you have been labeled insane in your past, Hare, I can almost sympathize with your feelings towards that label, were it not for your elitist, prickish attitude.

And this helps discussion in what way?

And this helps discussion in what way?

The same way Hare's previous post did.

There is not really a discussion left. Hare took his ball and went home, when he was shown wrong.