[GTAvanja]

QUOTE (Arsen Vitiuk @ Tuesday, Oct 11 2011, 22:26)

Personally I respect all people's beliefs, even though I do not share some of their points of view.

Why do you respect all people's beliefs? Don't you know that Muslims (for example) believe that those who don't follow their religion deserve to burn in hell? They think it's perfectly normal (I'm talking about extreme Muslims). By believing in that they're disrespecting anyone who doesn't agree with them. So why do you respect beliefs that directly disrespect you and teach others to do the same?

[Arsen Vitiuk]

And why should I not respect them only because they disrespect me?

As I see it, they have their right to express their beliefs and opinions. Only so they do sometimes act lke that fanatic neighbour.

Why I respect everyone's opinions and beliefs is the fact that these things is what apparently makes everyone unique. Or would you rather be a mule among the mules?

[fireguy109]

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Tuesday, Oct 11 2011, 16:32)

QUOTE (Arsen Vitiuk @ Tuesday, Oct 11 2011, 22:26) Personally I respect all people's beliefs, even though I do not share some of their points of view. Why do you respect all people's beliefs? Don't you know that Muslims (for example) believe that those who don't follow their religion deserve to burn in hell? They think it's perfectly normal (I'm talking about extreme Muslims). By believing in that they're disrespecting anyone who doesn't agree with them. So why do you respect beliefs that directly disrespect you and teach others to do the same?

What's wrong with respecting others' beliefs? It's the civil, polite, right thing to do.

As for the "there's no evidence" argument,

QUOTE

It is practically impossible to prove something does not exist. During the time in which the searchers are looking for the object or person, the circumstances can change such that that person/object will escape detection. It is only possible to prove something does or did exist.

[K^2]

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Tuesday, Oct 11 2011, 16:26)

Dude, you said it's possible that a pink underwater unicorn collapsed WTC. Following the strict rules of logic, it would be. But rationally it's absurd to even consider such a thing. At least without some kind of evidence. Why do you have a brain if you refuse to use it in more than one linear way? Do  you know what critical thinking is? You should slap me for even imagining a pink underwater unicorn. And please don't lecture me about math and science.

Critical thinking requires you to consider all possibilities, but it's never a blind consideration. Critical thinking will never tell you that pink unicorn was uninvolved in WTC collapse. Critical thinking will tell you whether you need to worry about such a possibility based on what it is that you are trying to accomplish. If you are trying to make the world safer, possibility that unicorn did it does not help you in any way. You would never conclude that it's impossible. Only that it's impractical to consider it as a factor when solving this particular problem. That's how you use critical thinking, and that's based purely on formal logic.

If you refuse following strict logic, what exactly are you using as a standard of quality of argument? You cannot possibly say that argument a) is better than argument b) without logic. Logic will show one as sound, and the other as unsound. And that's all you can say.

Basically, there is no point in arguing if you keep denying logic. If that's the case, you're just a Luddite trying to take down something without even understanding it. Either argue on logic, or GTFO the D&D and stand on a soapbox somewhere.

QUOTE

And for the record, philosophers didn't figure out anything. Philosophy is not an exact science. It's funny that you even mentioned philosophy in such an argument.

Science is a branch of philosophy, ignoramus.

This post has been edited by K^2 on Tuesday, Oct 11 2011, 21:02

[Username482]

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Tuesday, Oct 11 2011, 20:32)

QUOTE (Arsen Vitiuk @ Tuesday, Oct 11 2011, 22:26) Personally I respect all people's beliefs, even though I do not share some of their points of view. Why do you respect all people's beliefs? Don't you know that Muslims (for example) believe that those who don't follow their religion deserve to burn in hell? They think it's perfectly normal (I'm talking about extreme Muslims). By believing in that they're disrespecting anyone who doesn't agree with them. So why do you respect beliefs that directly disrespect you and teach others to do the same?

Actually,in Islam,Christians and Jews will go to hell,but they have a little chance to get out. But people who believe in more then one god,or in Satan will go to hell..forever I guess.But what's disrespectful about it? If that's something said by god,Muslims have to believe in that.Of course Muslims still can respect Christians and Jews.

[3niX]

Well...

QUOTE

And I do believe that the Christians, the Jews, the Muslims and the Buddists - we all pray to the same god, just so we call him differently.

@Arsen Vitiuk - Its inreresting you mentioned it because Christians, Jews and Muslims actually share a prophet. And while most branches of Buddhism lack an omnipotent god (Theravada Buddhism is probably 'cleanest' when it comes to deities) its philosophy has had an influence on those religions.

QUOTE

Don't you know that Muslims (for example) believe that those who don't follow their religion deserve to burn in hell? They think it's perfectly normal (I'm talking about extreme Muslims).

@GTAvanja - Then they arent much different from any other extremist (regardless of the worldview) out there. Theres a good reason why we call them extremists.

QUOTE

And for the record, philosophers didn't figure out anything.

All I can say to that is... Oh God...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_of_science

Maybe you can recognize a few names from there.

[Mockage]

QUOTE (Arsen Vitiuk @ Tuesday, Oct 11 2011, 15:41)

Why I respect everyone's opinions and beliefs is the fact that these things is what apparently makes everyone unique. Or would you rather be a mule among the mules?

How about if there wasn't any religion at all? Would we still differ from others, regardless of race and personality?

This is why I don't like religion. I will practice it just for the sake of it, but I don't agree with the fact that it keeps us from doing what we want to do. Muslims can't eat pork; some of us actually wanna chow down on ribs and have an alternative good meal. Women must be covered from head to toe in a 'borkah' (or however you spell it), especially in Saudi I think? I mean, wearing a solid black piece of cloth covering your ENTIRE body in 100 degrees weather won't affect your health? What's more important, your health, or practicing your religion?

[GTAvanja]

QUOTE (K^2 @ Tuesday, Oct 11 2011, 22:58)

Science is a branch of philosophy, ignoramus.

Sure, if you just consider the oldest possible definition that no one else uses except you because it proves your argument. Meaning of words change over time. Deal with it. Branches of science such as physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics etc. are very much separated from philosophy. Of course, that doesn't stop scientists from being philosophers, but those sciences rely on research, evidence and scientific theories, not philosophy. But you're trying to twist words again, so I probably shouldn't have bothered. With your way of thinking, how the hell do you reach any decisions in your life?

Seriously dude, listen to yourself. You're so hellbent on proving your point (even though I know you know you're wrong), that you're willing to say that you accept the possibility that a pink underwater wish-granting unicorn who collapsed the WTC exists, just because the rules of logic say so. And on top of that you have the courage to say how there is no such thing as a logic trap? You can't be serious. This is the most irrational thing I've ever witnessed. You're worse than those Jesus freaks. At least they know what they believe in and what they don't believe in. You will say that anything can exist despite what your rational mind is telling you. That means you don't value your opinion one bit. So why should I?

QUOTE (3niX)

All I can say to that is... Oh God... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_philosophers_of_science Maybe you can recognize a few names from there.

I was referring to philosophy, not natural sciences. Of course those scientist discovered a lot of things in their fields of research, but as far as philosophical questions goes, that's all you have - questions and philosophical theories. Again, I'm talking about philosophy in a modern meaning of the word. Meaning of words is determined by their current usage, not their historical origin.

This post has been edited by GTAvanja on Wednesday, Oct 12 2011, 00:05

[K^2]

That coming from a man who denounces logic because he's beat on that? Yeah. If you define "reason" as anything that makes you right, how can you possibly lose an argument, right?

If you denounce logic, get out of D&D. You are no longer participating in a debate, and therefore, in violation of the rules.

[GTAvanja]

I'm not denouncing logic. I'm denouncing your use of logic. You are not expressing any opinions because of your logic. I ask you how do you reach everyday decisions if you truly live your life like that? Surely logic would get in a way of some major decisions. And a lot of decisions we make every day aren't logical but we have to make them in order to survive. That's what I call reason. What do you do then? Do you use reason knowing it's against logic? If you do, that makes you a hypocrite, and a coward for not expressing your real opinion here. So as it turns out, you're the one breaking the rules. How do you debate without expressing an opinion? That sounds a lot like trolling, or simple dishonesty.

[K^2]

If you think I'm not using logic right, show me the flaw. Logic is either sound, or it is not. If logic is not sound, there is an error. You can't use it wrong otherwise.

I do use logic for every decision. Demonstrate me a situation where it would get in the way. Of course, you don't know what my axioms are, so I know in advance that you cannot do so, but do try, if you are so certain as to call me a hypocrite and a coward.

[GTAvanja]

QUOTE (K^2)

If you think I'm not using logic right, show me the flaw. Logic is either sound, or it is not. If logic is not sound, there is an error. You can't use it wrong otherwise. I do use logic for every decision. Demonstrate me a situation where it would get in the way. Of course, you don't know what my axioms are, so I know in advance that you cannot do so, but do try, if you are so certain as to call me a hypocrite and a coward.

This post just proved my point. And all because you chose to ignore reason again.
See, if you used reason instead of relying on pure logic (but you didn't even do that) you would have known that you were giving me one of your axioms.
And you served it on a silver platter: "You don't know what my axioms are, so I know in advance..." Clearly I know that one. Thanks. So there you have it.
You didn't use logic when you decided to post that. You were driven by emotions and desire to prove your point. You posted a very ironic axiom without thinking, and that means the axiom is wrong. If you didn't post it, it would be true. And how do you reach a correct logical conclusion with a wrong axiom?

This is kinda paradoxical.

This post has been edited by GTAvanja on Wednesday, Oct 12 2011, 01:22

[K^2]

So you don't know what an axiom means either. You deny logic. You deny denying logic. You make up new meanings for words. Where is this going, seriously?

If you can think of a single example where logic gives the wrong result, give it. Otherwise, stop pretending you have a shred of idea of what's going on around you.

[GTAvanja]

Riiiiiight.

So:

QUOTE

In traditional logic, an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proven or demonstrated but considered either to be self-evident or to define and delimit the realm of analysis. In other words, an axiom is a logical statement that is assumed to be true. Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.

And:

QUOTE

you don't know what my axioms are, so I know in advance that you cannot do so

yeah...

And when did I say that logic gives wrong results? When did I deny logic? Where are you getting all this stuff?

This post has been edited by GTAvanja on Wednesday, Oct 12 2011, 01:54

[K^2]

Again, you don't understand what an axiom is. You are quoting a wikipedia definition, and then insist that something I stated is an axiom. The example you give is actually a corollary from definition of axiom, which is not even close to being an axiom itself.

And of course, I'm going to be using axioms of Boolean algebra. (You might have figured out this in 2-3 more posts, and tried to "Aha!" me.) But these are in no way sufficient on their own.

QUOTE

And when did I say that logic gives wrong results? When did I deny logic? Where are you getting all this stuff?

QUOTE

Following the strict rules of logic, it would be. But rationally it's absurd to even consider such a thing.

If something is true following strict rules of logic, it is true. That's the definition of truth. Naturally, you can't fight that, so you weasel in a new word, like you've been doing all along. "Rational". But there are only two options here. You either have to admit that rational thing to do is the logical thing to do, or keep on insisting on your own definition of what rational is. In the later case, you basically say that you can't win an argument, so you invent your own little world where you're right.

Again, if you admit something is logically true, that's it. You're done. You lost the argument. Either accept this, or get out of D&D.

[Otter]

Only a fool is positive.

[GTAvanja]

First of all, that Wikipedia definition is exactly the same as the one I have in my high school logic book, and in my university book of Introduction to law. But now you're allowing yourself to use a different definition because it suits you.

Again, I'm not denying logic, I'm saying that you can't live your life by reaching strictly logical decisions all the time.

You do realize that according to your standards of what is true, just by thinking that you're right you're reaching a decision that isn't logical. Which is what my point is. According to your logic both of us have the exact same probability that we're right. But somehow you seem to think that your opinion has a bigger probability. You probably think that's because you have some kind of evidence that you're right. But even that evidence will be subjected to the same logic you're using. Even that evidence has a 50% chance of being correct. And how do you decide that it is? You can't do it logically, you have to use something else. You have to use your own opinion which by your standards isn't logical, or you have to rely on popular opinion which is a logical fallacy. And you are doing that when you use definitions. You're willing to say that a pink underwater wish-granting unicorn can exist, but you will not accept the possibility that you might be wrong. It's an infinite loop. That's a perfect example of what I'm saying. You can't use logic all the time. You have to compromise and use other things such as common sense and reason. Otherwise you wouldn't be able to reach any decisions in your life. You'd just stand there until someone else makes all the decisions for you.

[3niX]

Well...

Let me deconstruct this thing then...

QUOTE

I was referring to philosophy, not natural sciences. Of course those scientist discovered a lot of things in their fields of research, but as far as philosophical questions goes, that's all you have - questions and philosophical theories. Again, I'm talking about philosophy in a modern meaning of the word. Meaning of words is determined by their current usage, not their historical origin.

No, you werent.
This is what you said, word for word:

QUOTE

And for the record, philosophers didn't figure out anything.

Which is clearly a false claim.
Also, philosophy is a systematic approach to reasoning.

QUOTE

This post just proved my point. And all because you chose to ignore reason again.

So this is how you refute him?
You do realize that the thing you call 'reason' isnt universally same. What you actually seem to be refering to as 'reason' is intuition. So, to claim that he is ignoring reason is quite ignorant.

QUOTE

Sure, if you just consider the oldest possible definition that no one else uses except you because it proves your argument.

So instead you choose a "modern" one that you made up?

QUOTE

Seriously dude, listen to yourself. You're so hellbent on proving your point (even though I know you know you're wrong)

Sounds pretty damn ironic to me.

QUOTE

I'm not denouncing logic. I'm denouncing your use of logic. You are not expressing any opinions because of your logic.

Then you manage to contradict yourself in the space of only a couple of sentences based on what YOU think is logic. Logic encompasses ways of argumentative reasoning. To say that someones logic is wrong is essentially the same as saying that someones reasoning is wrong by which you manage to denounce reason as a valid way of argumentation as well.

QUOTE

Do you use reason knowing it's against logic? If you do, that makes you a hypocrite, and a coward for not expressing your real opinion here.

Then why bother using logic at all if it is going to be refuted by your "reason" anyway?

QUOTE

This post just proved my point. And all because you chose to ignore reason again.

You mean, he is wrong because he isnt following YOUR "reasoning"?

QUOTE

See, if you used reason instead of relying on pure logic (but you didn't even do that)

And how exactly do you separate one from the other?

QUOTE

you would have known that you were giving me one of your axioms.

???

QUOTE

You posted a very ironic axiom without thinking, and that means the axiom is wrong. If you didn't post it, it would be true. And how do you reach a correct logical conclusion with a wrong axiom?

Im sorry, but that wasnt actually an axiom by the definition of the word...

QUOTE

When did I deny logic?

Seems like youve been doing it for at least a couple of pages now.

EDIT:

QUOTE

First of all, that Wikipedia definition is exactly the same as the one I have in my high school logic book, and in my university book of Introduction to law. But now you're allowing yourself to use a different definition because it suits you.

He isnt saying that the definiton is wrong... he is saying that your understanding of the definiton is wrong because the example you brought isnt actually an axiom but a derived statement based on the definition of an axiom.

QUOTE

Again, I'm not denying logic, I'm saying that you can't live your life by reaching strictly logical decisions all the time.

But you havent yet validly proved that point so far.

QUOTE

You do realize that according to your standards of what is true, just by thinking that you're right you're reaching a decision that isn't logical. Which is what my point is.

You do know that what your stating here is that logic refutes itself which means that logic (and hence reason) cant actually exist. Now YOURE the one whos stuck in a loop.
Theres a reason why we use axioms in logic.

QUOTE

According to your logic both of us have the exact same probability that we're right. But somehow you seem to think that your opinion has a bigger probability. You probably think that's because you have some kind of evidence that you're right. But even that evidence will be subjected to the same logic you're using. Even that evidence has a 50% chance of being correct.

That makes absolutely no sense at all and I have no idea how you reached such an argument.

QUOTE

And how do you decide that it is? You can't do it logically, you have to use something else. You have to use your own opinion which by your standards isn't logical, or you have to rely on popular opinion which is a logical fallacy.

While your whole train of thought has already been tragically derailed into oblivion Ill try to get back on track with this.

How to decide whats correct and whats not. While you have already excluded the chance of something being undefined by its nature it doesnt really mean that logic fails because of that. Using your own opinion is a slippery slope when your opinion is based on intuition rather than systematic reasoning or logic. Also, the conclusion that using popular opinion is a logical fallacy is rather abrupt and would need further clarification from you.

QUOTE

And you are doing that when you use definitions

So, what youre trying to say here is that definitions are inherently fallacious? Should we stop considering them completely then?

QUOTE

You're willing to say that a pink underwater wish-granting unicorn can exist, but you will not accept the possibility that you might be wrong.

Now youre just playing with the words 'can' and 'cant' without understanding the context of this whole example (which ironically YOU brought up).

QUOTE

It's an infinite loop. That's a perfect example of what I'm saying. You can't use logic all the time. You have to compromise and use other things such as common sense and reason.

Like I said before... then why bother using logic at all if it is refuted in undefined cases in undefined ways. Also, you cant really use common sense for anything because it equates to using the common experience and knowledge of most people OR your own beliefs which can range from rational to downright kooky.

QUOTE

Otherwise you wouldn't be able to reach any decisions in your life. You'd just stand there until someone else makes all the decisions for you.

Firstly, thats not really true. And secondly, it beats the alternative you provided.


This post has been edited by 3niX on Wednesday, Oct 12 2011, 10:42

[GTAvanja]

QUOTE

That makes absolutely no sense at all and I have no idea how you reached such an argument.

Read everything we've written so far.

QUOTE

Theres a reason why we use axioms in logic.

And there's a reason we can't be logical 100% of the time. It's good when we can, but we have to admit to ourselves that it's impossible to reach EVERY SINGLE DECISION IN YOUR LIFE following rules of logic. And no one has ever succeed in doing so. Kids always do illogical things. You were all kids once. You did illogical things.

QUOTE

That makes absolutely no sense at all and I have no idea how you reached such an argument.

Read everything we've written so far.

QUOTE

How to decide whats correct and whats not. While you have already excluded the chance of something being undefined by its nature it doesnt really mean that logic fails because of that. Using your own opinion is a slippery slope when your opinion is based on intuition rather than systematic reasoning or logic. Also, the conclusion that using popular opinion is a logical fallacy is rather abrupt and would need further clarification from you.

How does he decide what's correct and what's not? It's his logic that states that we can't know anything for sure. I think we can. Intuition isn't a bad thing. He is using intuition when he states that his opinion is logical. He's not using logic to come to that conclusion.

QUOTE

So, what youre trying to say here is that definitions are inherently fallacious? Should we stop considering them completely then?

I'm not saying they are fallacious, I'm saying that he can't know for sure using only logic. You asked a good question. How do we know what is correct? How do we know logic is correct? We can't prove logic with logic. We use intuition, our internal sense of what's right. But our sense of what is right can also be wrong. So to prevent that you should simply dismiss claims that come with no evidence. And that's why I don't believe in god and any other magical entity. There is no evidence to support their existence. So using logic to say that it's a 50/50 probability that magical entities exist, doesn't hold water. He who claims that something exists, better have some kind of evidence to support those claims. Otherwise I'll simply dismiss them as if they never existed.

My point is not to deny logic. I said already that I value logic. My point is that you can't live your life using only logic as the way of reasoning. He said that he can.

This post has been edited by GTAvanja on Wednesday, Oct 12 2011, 12:07

[Otter]

QUOTE (GTAvanja @ Wednesday, Oct 12 2011, 04:03)

QUOTE That makes absolutely no sense at all and I have no idea how you reached such an argument. Read everything we've written so far.

I've read it countless times and I still don't know what the f*ck you're talking about.