Dear atheists,

[Thumpalumpacus]

That depends on the matter under consideration.

I disagree, but I think what we're disagreeing on is the perspective.  If you have an objective, I'm guessing, you are saying you are more likely to achieve the objective by being logical.  I'm saying it doesn't matter whether you achieve the objective or not, so how you go about doing it doesn't matter.

If nothing at all matters to you, then this conversation is pointless.

But if you're trying to complete a Euclidean proof, or settle a criminal case, or manage a computer network, logic is much more useful than illogic.

Of course it has its limits, and I've never been one to argue that logic is the Swiss Army knife of thought processes, but to argue 'There is no "logical > "not logical' is obviously conditional based on the matter under consideration.  

Logic underpins the very computer you are using to post. Try running that same computer on feelings, and get back to this thread with the results ... if you can.