(September 21, 2012 at 10:20 pm)Darkstar Wrote: We are allowed to redifine logic? There is a dictionary because there are objective meanings to certain words and concepts. It's not so much the content of the argument, but the rules of logic themselves that must remain constant for the debate to go anywhere.

Who is redefining logic here? read what I wrote.

(September 21, 2012 at 10:36 pm)catfish Wrote:

(September 21, 2012 at 10:20 pm)Darkstar Wrote: We are allowed to redifine logic? There is a dictionary because there are objective meanings to certain words and concepts. It's not so much the content of the argument, but the rules of logic themselves that must remain constant for the debate to go anywhere.

Who is redefining logic here? read what I wrote.

If by 'your own logic' you mean 'your own argument' then I misintrpreted you. I thought you meant that theists were somehow applying different rules of logic that atheists refused to accept (i.e. theists say that god can break the rule of cause and effect and be an uncaused cause).

(September 21, 2012 at 10:20 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(September 21, 2012 at 9:59 pm)catfish Wrote: Define "parts". Feel free to define it for Mr Harris if you must, just pick a solid fact and keep telling me I must agree.

The reason why you can't have a logical discussion with theists is because you only accept your own logic being correct...

We are allowed to redifine logic? There is a dictionary because there are objective meanings to certain words and concepts. It's not so much the content of the argument, but the rules of logic themselves that must remain constant for the debate to go anywhere.

Actually, you are allowed to define your own logic. In another thread here there was a discussion about just that topic. One of the things I find sometimes disconcerting (massive generalization alert) is the tendency of atheists, skeptics, humanists and the like is to simplify things down until they fit their model which makes them feel good about their choices and bad about everybody else's. (A quick example, I just had my first meeting with a "heathen bible study" group, and the organizer right out of the gate wanted to interpret every passage as hand-crafted as a tool for the elite to manipulate and control the sheep. We eventually got onto other theories about the nature of religion but her control theory, but this person had great difficulty seeing any turn of phrase as anything but a dastardly, finely crafted tool for depriving the masses of their freedom.) Unfortunately, when the world gets simplified to that extent, it often becomes untrue. I've lost whatever point I originally had, but I think part of being a skeptic or free thinker is being open to the world telling you things that differ from what you want to say. And I'm sure I'm equally guilty in my own way, it's just rather strange to see people who despise dogma trying to codify the world into dogmatic and well behaved little bits. The world is messy, complicated and deep. And to steal from that expression that "Evolution is smarter than you," it's good to keep in mind that Nature is often smarter than you as well. A billion neurons in the brain and that's the substance out of which your world models come. If it sounds to good to be true (too obvious, self-evident, too clean, well-behaved, whatever), then it probably is.

(September 21, 2012 at 9:59 pm)catfish Wrote: I don't think you're capable of operating your own stick...

Define "parts". Feel free to define it for Mr Harris if you must, just pick a solid fact and keep telling me I must agree.

The reason why you can't have a logical discussion with theists is because you only accept your own logic being correct...

Part = part. You want a fucking definition? HOW ABOUT ONE FROM THE FUCKING OXFORD DICTIONARY, you fucking assburger??

Quote:any of a number of more or less equal quantities that compose a whole or into which a whole is divided: Use two parts sugar to one part cocoa.

You fucking peabrain. Drunk off my ass and I can STILL school you! Shut your fucking face the next time you decide to spew some retarded crap from it so I can reserve the beatdown stick for someone worth my fucking time. I'm getting sick of you brain-damaged theists babbling your warped interpretations of reality and logic on this forum, I really fucking am.

---

(September 21, 2012 at 10:36 pm)catfish Wrote:

(September 21, 2012 at 10:20 pm)Darkstar Wrote: We are allowed to redifine logic? There is a dictionary because there are objective meanings to certain words and concepts. It's not so much the content of the argument, but the rules of logic themselves that must remain constant for the debate to go anywhere.

Who is redefining logic here? read what I wrote.

DUUUUHHHRRRR You are, moron.

(September 22, 2012 at 3:08 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote:

(September 21, 2012 at 9:59 pm)catfish Wrote: I don't think you're capable of operating your own stick...

Define "parts". Feel free to define it for Mr Harris if you must, just pick a solid fact and keep telling me I must agree.

The reason why you can't have a logical discussion with theists is because you only accept your own logic being correct...

Part = part. You want a fucking definition? HOW ABOUT ONE FROM THE FUCKING OXFORD DICTIONARY, you fucking assburger??

Quote:any of a number of more or less equal quantities that compose a whole or into which a whole is divided: Use two parts sugar to one part cocoa.

You fucking peabrain. Drunk off my ass and I can STILL school you! Shut your fucking face the next time you decide to spew some retarded crap from it so I can reserve the beatdown stick for someone worth my fucking time. I'm getting sick of you brain-damaged theists babbling your warped interpretations of reality and logic on this forum, I really fucking am.

---

(September 21, 2012 at 10:36 pm)catfish Wrote: Who is redefining logic here? read what I wrote.

DUUUUHHHRRRR You are, moron.

See? I present you with FACTS and you won't accept them. You fucking hypocrite!

Do the math there boy, if we go by your example of sugar/cocoa, then I can assume a "part" is by volume and not weight...

Please, keep exposing yourself for the moron that you are, I find it hillarious...

Cry me a river wang-chung, I don't care about your fragile feelings.

(September 22, 2012 at 2:56 am)apophenia Wrote: Actually, you are allowed to define your own logic. In another thread here there was a discussion about just that topic. One of the things I find sometimes disconcerting (massive generalization alert) is the tendency of atheists, skeptics, humanists and the like is to simplify things down until they fit their model which makes them feel good about their choices and bad about everybody else's. (A quick example, I just had my first meeting with a "heathen bible study" group, and the organizer right out of the gate wanted to interpret every passage as hand-crafted as a tool for the elite to manipulate and control the sheep. We eventually got onto other theories about the nature of religion but her control theory, but this person had great difficulty seeing any turn of phrase as anything but a dastardly, finely crafted tool for depriving the masses of their freedom.) Unfortunately, when the world gets simplified to that extent, it often becomes untrue. I've lost whatever point I originally had, but I think part of being a skeptic or free thinker is being open to the world telling you things that differ from what you want to say. And I'm sure I'm equally guilty in my own way, it's just rather strange to see people who despise dogma trying to codify the world into dogmatic and well behaved little bits. The world is messy, complicated and deep. And to steal from that expression that "Evolution is smarter than you," it's good to keep in mind that Nature is often smarter than you as well. A billion neurons in the brain and that's the substance out of which your world models come. If it sounds to good to be true (too obvious, self-evident, too clean, well-behaved, whatever), then it probably is.

By logic, I mean nothing more than the standard rules of logic. For instance, a statement that is a logical fallacy won't be taken seriously because it is logically flawed. How people use logic to interpret things however, can indeed change. I admit that logically sound arguments can be invalid, but we can't just throw out the rulebook. It's like when someone teaches you how to think critically, but not what to think. Even using the same rules, people can reach varying conclusions, but there are still some things that cannot ever be accepted as logically valid regardless of interpretation, like circular reasoning, for example. I understand what you mean, but I am only referring to logic on the most basic level.

(September 22, 2012 at 4:29 pm)Darkstar Wrote:

(September 22, 2012 at 2:56 am)apophenia Wrote: Actually, you are allowed to define your own logic. In another thread here there was a discussion about just that topic. One of the things I find sometimes disconcerting (massive generalization alert) is the tendency of atheists, skeptics, humanists and the like is to simplify things down until they fit their model which makes them feel good about their choices and bad about everybody else's. (A quick example, I just had my first meeting with a "heathen bible study" group, and the organizer right out of the gate wanted to interpret every passage as hand-crafted as a tool for the elite to manipulate and control the sheep. We eventually got onto other theories about the nature of religion but her control theory, but this person had great difficulty seeing any turn of phrase as anything but a dastardly, finely crafted tool for depriving the masses of their freedom.) Unfortunately, when the world gets simplified to that extent, it often becomes untrue. I've lost whatever point I originally had, but I think part of being a skeptic or free thinker is being open to the world telling you things that differ from what you want to say. And I'm sure I'm equally guilty in my own way, it's just rather strange to see people who despise dogma trying to codify the world into dogmatic and well behaved little bits. The world is messy, complicated and deep. And to steal from that expression that "Evolution is smarter than you," it's good to keep in mind that Nature is often smarter than you as well. A billion neurons in the brain and that's the substance out of which your world models come. If it sounds to good to be true (too obvious, self-evident, too clean, well-behaved, whatever), then it probably is.

By logic, I mean nothing more than the standard rules of logic. For instance, a statement that is a logical fallacy won't be taken seriously because it is logically flawed. How people use logic to interpret things however, can indeed change. I admit that logically sound arguments can be invalid, but we can't just throw out the rulebook. It's like when someone teaches you how to think critically, but not what to think. Even using the same rules, people can reach varying conclusions, but there are still some things that cannot ever be accepted as logically valid regardless of interpretation, like circular reasoning, for example. I understand what you mean, but I am only referring to logic on the most basic level.

Uh, no, you actually don't know what I mean.

(September 22, 2012 at 4:47 pm)apophenia Wrote: Uh, no, you actually don't know what I mean.

Maybe not... I thought you meant something to the effect that people can interpret things in many different ways, but even if they consider their interpretation to be sound by their logic, it isn't objectively true, and that people can reach different conclusions with different logic without being totally right or wrong. If I'm wrong about that then I apologize. I was only referring to logical rules that cannot be broken, nothing more. I only mean to suggest that this one part of logic cannot change, although other parts can.

(sobriety mode engaged; calm levels greatly enhanced)
Facts? FACTS?! You provided nothing! The only one here who provided a fact was me, sourcing from the friggin' dictionary and somehow, as is common with you god-botherers, you misinterpret it even when the "context" is laid bare.

A part, I reiterate, is a measure of equal, less, or more units, of which all combine a single total. In culinary measurements, which was the example used, saying "one part sugar to two parts cocoa" if the overall measurement is a cup CAN, and often will for sake of simplicity in a recipe, mean that it is 1/3 cup of sugar and 2/3 cup of cocoa, but it can ALSO mean that a pre-determined amount of each specified measurement can be used. For example, if the specified measurements were 1/2 cup of sugar and 1/3 cup of cocoa, saying "one part to two parts" would mean that you adjust the recipe to use 2/3 cup of cocoa, to the 1/2 cup of sugar, because, again, as definition, a "part" is just that, a part. Less, equal, or greater than other measurements that will comprise a whole.

Ergo, water is two parts hydrogen and one part oxygen even though the overall combined mass is not equally 66% hydrogen and 33% oxygen. Sam Harris was not flawed in his statement, not by any sense. I mean if you've REALLY been going about your life thinking that since your arm is a PART of your body and your body is comprised of four limbs, a torso, and a head, ergo six parts, that your arm comprises 16.666~% of the mass of your body, in equal relation to, say, your torso or your head, then, fuck, no wonder you believe the babble in the bible; reality just doesn't make sense to you otherwise.

(September 19, 2012 at 9:53 am)greneknight Wrote: So, do you find it threatening if it's nothing? Why do people oppose me?

It's not that great of an idea. You're left with...morals. Morals and principles which we already follow as humans.