(September 24, 2012 at 2:29 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: (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.

LOL @ the atheist arguing "context"!!!

Seriously dude, read the quote again...
pocaracas AND Stue Denim both recognised the truth to my statement and I'm fairly sure pocaracas' statement is also true...

I get it, you don't wish to think of water that way. So I guess there's no point in trying to have a logical discussion with you as you won't...

(feel free to pound your keyboard in frustration)

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

What do you mean by "logically sound"? In logic, an argument is "sound" if and only if it is both valid and its premises are true. Under this meaning of "sound", logically "sound" arguments can't be invalid, because they are by definition valid. Since that's a contradiction, I assume it isn't what you meant.

So what did you mean?

Quote: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.

Well, to be pedantic, I don't think circular reasoning is logically flawed. In fact, it's often used in mathematical proofs to establish the logical equivalence of a set of propositions.

For example, suppose you have a collection of propositions {a,b,c}. One way of proving a <=> b <=> c goes like this:

1) Assume a is true.
2) Prove that b follows.
3) Assume b is true.
4) Prove that c follows.
5) Assume that c is true.
6) Prove that a follows.

Thus, a => b, b => c, and c => a. By the transitive property of =>, a => c. Thus, since c => a and a => c, a <=> c. Since c => a and a => b, c => b. Thus b <=> c. Since b => c and c => a, b => a so b <=> a. QED.

I like to think of logic as a system of inference. Which particular collections of propositions (or facts, or thought experiments, or what-have-you) might differ, but what doesn't change is the method of drawing inferences (e.g., "From p and p => q, infer q").

(September 25, 2012 at 12:09 am)catfish Wrote:

---

(September 24, 2012 at 2:29 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: (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.

---

LOL @ the atheist arguing "context"!!!

Seriously dude, read the quote again...
pocaracas AND Stue Denim both recognised the truth to my statement and I'm fairly sure pocaracas' statement is also true...

I get it, you don't wish to think of water that way. So I guess there's no point in trying to have a logical discussion with you as you won't...

(feel free to pound your keyboard in frustration)

Are you guys still going on with this? Knock it off! You sound like two kids brawling over who's ice cream is best... while it just melts away.
It's just two ways to look at the same thing.
H2O, 2 hydrogens and one oxygen. Hence the 2 parts H and one part O.
Oh, but Oxygen is much more massive than Hydrogen, so it's really some 16 parts O (8 protons + 8 neutrons) and 2 H (1+1 protons), discounting electrons which are much less massive than the protons and neutrons.
Oh, but in spatial terms, these atoms are mostly empty space!
Oh, but they're really just waves created by the Higgs Boson.
Oh, but, but, but....

ARRRGRGAGGHHHH
It's all the same frickin' thing!
Ice cream is just frozen milk with flavouring. (hehe, don't try this at home, or you won't get ice cream! )

(September 25, 2012 at 12:33 am)CliveStaples Wrote: What do you mean by "logically sound"? In logic, an argument is "sound" if and only if it is both valid and its premises are true. Under this meaning of "sound", logically "sound" arguments can't be invalid, because they are by definition valid. Since that's a contradiction, I assume it isn't what you meant.

So what did you mean?

I meant when it's premise is false, but the argument is valid.

(September 19, 2012 at 9:50 am)greneknight Wrote: Which is why I have been arguing for rational Christianity, a religion that is stripped of its supernatural nonsense.

I'm interested in hearing more about this. What is it that you suggest we do with rational christianity, as you define it? Of what use is it? Why would I want to embrace it?

(September 25, 2012 at 3:54 pm)Tino Wrote:

(September 19, 2012 at 9:50 am)greneknight Wrote: Which is why I have been arguing for rational Christianity, a religion that is stripped of its supernatural nonsense.

I'm interested in hearing more about this. What is it that you suggest we do with rational christianity, as you define it? Of what use is it? Why would I want to embrace it?

I really don't get it either. You would have to follow a bunch of strict rules that you would only want to follow to avoid hell, whilst not believing in hell. (And don't anyone say those 'rules' are morals. Morals are important, but many christian rules outline a poor moral framework.)

(September 19, 2012 at 9:50 am)greneknight Wrote:

(September 19, 2012 at 9:33 am)Creed of Heresy Wrote: This image sums up, in entirety, the problem we atheists have when we try to have logical conversations with you:

You simply won't.

Which is why I have been arguing for rational Christianity, a religion that is stripped of its supernatural nonsense. And it's funny that atheists are opposing me like I have done something wrong.

What supernatural nonsense do you plan to strip from Christianity?

The resurrection of Christ, for example?

The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

The forgiveness of sins, eternal life, etc?

Please explain.

(September 25, 2012 at 9:45 pm)Blackrook Wrote: What supernatural nonsense do you plan to strip from Christianity?

The resurrection of Christ, for example?

The real presence of Christ in the Eucharist?

The forgiveness of sins, eternal life, etc?

Please explain.

Everything that cannot be observed, I suppose. He believes God to be a metaphor for goodness.

If we set it to music and brought Shirley Temple back from the dead, I'm just sure there'd be a movie deal in it.



Oddly enough, I spent this evening discussing Katherine Stewart's book, The Good News Club, in which one of the questions discussed was how to counteract all the sneaky, underhanded — but effective — shit that evangelical Christians pull. Opinion was mixed, but I was anchoring the "you can't compete with the motivating power of batshit crazy paranoia and desperation" end of the table. Reason just doesn't have as much pulling power, and to conservatives, anything intellectual smacks of liberalism.

(September 25, 2012 at 12:09 am)catfish Wrote:

(September 24, 2012 at 2:29 pm)Creed of Heresy Wrote: (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.

LOL @ the atheist arguing "context"!!!

Seriously dude, read the quote again...
pocaracas AND Stue Denim both recognised the truth to my statement and I'm fairly sure pocaracas' statement is also true...

I get it, you don't wish to think of water that way. So I guess there's no point in trying to have a logical discussion with you as you won't...

(feel free to pound your keyboard in frustration)

All Stue said was:

Quote:By mass sure, but it's 2 hydrogen atoms for every oxygen atom...

And Pocaracas just clarified it as well in saying that it is two parts hydrogen, one part oxygen but also by definition of mass it can be considered as sixteen to eight etc etc etc.

So no, they actually agreed with me, and the definition in the dictionary, which is to say that they agreed that Sam Harris' definition is correct.

By the way, the only thing I pounded was your mom's ass.