solving a problem using the given data, by working out relationships between data pieces, while discarding or ignoring irrelevant pieces

science is tied with logic. science is a logical process.

yes, all the time. people aren't perfect when it comes to finding answers, and that's what restricts science.

yes, but it also depends if the poeple are willing to do so. religeon often causes people to build themselves a wall against anything that contradicts with their religeon.

we'd have to demonstrate what can be achieved by doing so

you're welcome

Law of noncontradiction (a is not non-a)
Law of Identity (A is A)
Law of Excluded middle (either A or non-A)

Some thing has properties.

It can not have contradictory properties.

Is the law of excluded middle a tautology? What are tautology for? What do you do with it? It is a starting point in narrowing things down right?

There's more than one logic.

These are the laws of classical or Aristotelian logic. But they are not necessarily axioms for all logical systems.

Their claims make no sense and only serve to demonstrate that they have no education in logic.

heheheh... I certainly didn't 'hand your ass to you'... you're claims were correct if in fact you were implying classical logic when you said 'logic'. Most people actually mean classical logic when they say 'logic'

The problem is that the rules for classical logic are not necessarily the rules for other types of logic. Some follow the axioms of Aristotle, others don't. In fact, there are logicians who deny the validity of the law of non contradiction as a universal law... they hold that it breaks down in some places and that there are true contradictions. We call this dialetheism.... which is sorta cool, coz it contains the word 'theism' in regard to supporting contradictions....

Others deny that the law of the excluded middle holds.... There are even those who try to deny the law of identity... they often rely on 'quantum physics' as a support, but their arguments are specious

The classical logic of Aristotle relies on those axioms, and as most people mean Aristotelian logic, when they say 'logic', you are right.

So it's not really a matter of right and wrong, but of specificity.

You could get a brief overview of logic here, on my logic site:

http://www.candleinthedark.com/logic.html

In brief, classic logic deals with categorical syllogisms.

A category is a term that denotes a class of things.... such as a 'car' or an 'idea'

A syllogism is a two-premise deductive argument in which a conclusion is inferred from two premises. A categorical syllogism - a form of argument first inculcated by Aristotle - is a specific type of syllogism consisting of three categorical propositions that together contain exactly three terms or categories, each of which occurs in exactly two of the three propositions.

You might be able to tell from this that classical logic is a bit restrictive.... so we have more modern forms of logic.... some of them rely on the same axioms of aristotle, why other logics create their own rules.

But if a logic is to 'make sense' it cannot be in discord with basic metaphysics.

Ok, cool.

Me too Elegy. I think I will read and google a bit on what was shared here. That way I will have decent questions to ask. These gentlemen, FattyChunks and todangst are very kind.

I should also practice logical fallacies I think. I guess I could try to find a Christian board and start up a debate. Post it here and see what yall think. Elegy please feel free to critique my posts as well as the theists posts. If I am wrong I want to know it. I want what is good.

I will do this this weekend Elegy. I promise. I am going to be on and offline this week.

You are very intelligent for 15 dear. It is good that you are a thinker.

-In reason

LOL. Be bold Dr Fear.

I am a little squeemish, but I do learn from everyone here.

I may not like everything you post, but I do learn from you! I am glad you are here.

i'm sure if you breathe my way i'm sure there's something that will come across as handing my ass to me.. or i'll at least find something

yea now i've read into the identity one. types of buddhism actually use this line of thought for the 'no self' i think, right? that's all i could think about when that guy was on reggie's show a while back talking about the 'no self' cuz that's what it sounded like.. or that's what i was relating it to.

and i guess all i see when people, as you said, 'deny' the laws, they're just redefining them but again still excercising logic in the process to prove their case. they all seem almost self defeating. using logic to redefine the laws of logic....

http://www.candleinthedark.com/logic.html

i kicked myself in the face when i responded to yer ass-handing post cuz i knew i should've directed these guys to yer site to begin with.

but ok, this is what i understand some theist presupposationalist (if there is no god, i will some day learn how to spell that word, if it is a word) say is we assume things should make sense because god has created logic as a tool to lead us to him. from what i also understand, this is derived from the First Cause argument. which is, for everything that has a cause, had a beginning, thus the world had a beginning and had to have a first cause, or it would have never began to exist at all.

the problem then is pure logic. notice the exception they have to make to their own rule. everything has to have a cause, except the First Cause. simply put, self refuting.

i'd like to get more indepth maybe into people like gene cook's presuppose shit cuz it's getting more and more practice among believers i've noticed.. but that's enouhg fer me tonight. work in the morning...

np Elegy. i'm no expert, and todangst will be here to remind me of that, but i'll answer yer questions as best i can... and todangst will be here to ass-hand me, but i will take it with a bow baby!

but in all seriousness, it's people like todangst that take time to explain things as simple as possible that helped me see the falacy in theism. there was never a single theist that took the time to explain things to me from the bottom up. i had to do it all on my own... and when i started questioning stuff, i never posted anything on forums for a LONG time. i only read. but the personalities of great minds like todangst encouraged me to challenge myself and i was only encouraged even more when i could actually find myself understanding the problems i was having.. and in turn having people help me see the problems and the solutions led me to where i am today and i'm going to hell. !WOOT!

whoa there now. never seen my name in the same sentence as gentlemen. i choked on my soda.

ni night

that is a pretty neat quote

i laughed when dan barker answered 'no' when paul milenata (sp?) asked him if he thought logic exists because that was obviously not what paul wanted to hear. did you hear that debate? that was a nightmare... paul was so far out in left field...

what some christian apologists want to prove is that logic DOES exist in some sort of physical sense 'which is why they ARE universal'. but what barker explained very simply was that logic is not a thing, just like digestion is not a thing. they are functions.'

and maybe for those who can benefit from it, what theists try to do with logic is define it as some THING so that they can try to force the atheist to give an account for it's existence. in other words, why is there logic? it must have had a designer, or a creator for it being so uniformed and universal. (this is how i understand the argument, correct me if i'm wrong). but what needs to be done is understanding that logic (rational thought) is a function of a brain just like digestion is a function of a stomach.

yup there's no reason to assume god had anything to do with it. it's simply a god of the gap, filling in an unknown with the idea of GOD. it's funny.. i mean, i use to be like 'wow! this is where god comes in! it makes so much sense!' when i use to be a christian...

i think it'd benefit us here as well, maybe even help passer-bys that might fall upon the RRS site and maybe passer-bys dont even know who infidelguy's forums are. i dont know if i've seen them there myself actually.

well and i mean it. i dont know how many times pastors.. PASTORS said to me as a response to tough questions 'god is not the author of confusion, so if you're confused, where are these questions coming from?' countless times was i told this shit and made me realize i needed to look elsewhere for answers. people like you really helped me.

This thread is a nice excuse to refer to my sig again. I think that falicious thinking can translate into "being unreasonable". One thing we could also discuss is the importance of "being reasonable". Examine what one would consider mistreatment of humans, or injustice, an expose the falicious thinking underneath for illustration.

There's religious bigotry for starters...

Hey fattychunks!

The heart and the mind prompts us to do, or to believe with the evidences it percieves. Can logic amplify the heart and mind in reasonably meeting its goals. Through logic can the heart and mind be more reasonable than it was?

I still think like a Christian in a lot of ways I guess. I am keenly aware of what my heart needs, but not good at meeting its goals sometimes. I am irrational still. Hehe. Bigotry is a blight on the heart, where as rational descrimination can possibly cure what ails the heart. Irrational fears and hatred's also comes from the heart unfortunately...the more you know the better you can descriminate. I would rather know what is truly harmful or a threat than simply react to something alien to me or fall back on what our ancestors taught us. They could be wrong about many things.

We are social animals and so we might want to try and understand the human condition ( understand others) perhaps in order to find what is truly nourishing for the heart. For a sense of well being. I sense some how that logic will help us in rationaly descriminating in regards people and their ideas. To maintain a sense of well being much of the time as well as developing better ideas that are useful. I am trying to find a way to fill a void. I sense that logic can help everday people. That a person of average intelligence can learn it.

I am an atheist 95% of the time, but my mind sometimes twists things in hopes of making sense of things. Which is silly. Maybe for me certain emotional values are that higher sense. Higher self.
I need values. I need hope. But I reject blind hope.

Hehe. I was not very clear. I still feel the same way as a religionsts sometimes and I do not make myself clear because of it. There is some kind of connection, commonality with human beings that we see sometimes. Can't logic be used to improve in our values? To change our values for more useful ones? Can logic amplify our higher self?

Maybe I am asking the wrong questions for logic.

I need time to think about some things. I will slowly absorb what I can about logic.

What I meant about hope was a sense of well being as well as understanding for improvement. Hope that can build bridges. Hope that we can figure out where we want to go from here. Hope that we can inspire eachother to reason and be open minded. We as in humanity.

I am ok with my mortality I guess, most of the time. :s

Thank you kindly for responding fattychunks.

i think i see a buddhist in the making here lol.

i think what's happening is that you are sort of expecting logic to point to a purpose in life. i may be wrong, but let me tell you, i think you're doing just fine in asking the right questions. i dont think i'm the most qualified person to be the one interpretting your questions or even responding to your questions because i'm still a very young non-christian, not even a full 3 years here. but the attitude you have it very encouraging for me to read and i think, i THINK you would do well to look into buddhism. i've always had a thing for it and i know very little except how some of it's teachings come out in the new testament, aka Paul saying 'it is no longer i that lives, but christ that lives in me' is so very close to the idea of finding a 'no self' in buddhist philosophy. trying to die to the self to find nothing is almost like dying to yourself, being empty so christ can dwell in you.

and i like your quote, it is pretty insightful.

and if i say something that doesnt make much sense (it's prolly my fault anyways) dont be afraid to ask me to clarify. i wont take offense. except if you're a racist. then i'll swear at you.

=)

I had dropped by here because of a suggestion from an acquaintance and actually had just planned to read through a few of the posts and move on. However, when I saw the following comments, I felt compelled to ask the questions, and make a few comments of my own. Thanks in advance for your indulgence, and you're welcome from the response.

I consider myself an average person, and that question caused me to wonder who it is you consider everyday people, in that comment? It appears that it may be those who may be considered less educated than yourself and your peers. Which leads to another question...is it really necessary to understand logic in order to use it or possess it?

Then you go on to say....

Again, (for me) the meaning of that question is unclear. But it causes me to believe that the general concensus here may be, that one must have an advanced education in order to think logically or understand the scientific method; that one must be taught logic in a formal education environment in order to apply logic in one's thinking.

It also seems that anyone that has gone to public or private school in the U.S. beyond the 8th grade has had at the least a rudimentary exposure to the scientific method of study.

To be honest, I have not had extended studies of logic--other than a computer related math class that had some reference to logic in it (those pesky, AND, OR, NOT {&, ||, <>})--but I still consider myself a logical thinker in dealing with many aspects of everyday life and living. Not at the level of Spock or Dr. Smith, but it is still employed.

While reading through some of the other comments on this subject I will admit that I was unaware that there were actual Laws of Logic, but the first too actually appeared to me as, but of course A=A. But the whole missing middle didn't make a lot of sense.

My personal view is that appearently, not enough credit is being given to the average person to apply logical thinking in solving daily problems. My personal experience has also shown that there are many individuals who have low levels of formal education that possess high levels of logic, and apply them on a regular basis. I doubt even a Ph.D. could argue with the logic used by the main character (played by Billy Bob Thorton) in the movie "Sling Blade."

Hehe.

To me many atheists online seem more educated. I lurked and never asked questions, because I figured I might not be able to learn what yall know of logic and science. I am everday people. Average intelligence. Below average education. Many people I know offline are like me. Are they not interested or just discouraged somehow?

I have bits and pieces of Free Thought that I have read from atheists posts at forums. Books. Links. Posts. That they have talked about. I want more. Not satisfied.

I figure maybe others are like I was, interested but intimidated. Lurkers...and maybe others.

I am going to look stupid in the beginning, but I will learn logic...

"A false inference on individual outcomes"

Hehe. Also perfect is in the eye of the beholder?

When I post my debate with a theist here I will probably use the wrong latin words for what I see as a logical fallacy. heh.

My thoughts can be scattered sometimes and so I was hoping logic would help with that.....good communication is everything. In my opinion. Debate would be good for practicing listening skills.
Understanding also. To pay attention to what a person says while forming your own thoughts. I do not see people doing this around me offline. Instead people shout over the other without listening. Strawmans.

DarthJosh
"Never underestimate the power of google fu, the cyber martial art. lol."

I do not always understand what I read. My vocabulary is limited. I do use a dictionary& thesaurus though. It is nice when people write in just regular English.

"I consider myself an average person, and that question caused me to wonder who it is you consider everyday people, in that comment?"

just wanted to say, i dont think i made the comment heh.

"It appears that it may be those who may be considered less educated than yourself and your peers. Which leads to another question...is it really necessary to understand logic in order to use it or possess it?"

now THAT is a good question! i think the answer is no since the laws of logic vary from place to place because they are not absolute in a material sense or universal sense. people use different logic for different part of their NECESSARY everyday lives. so it's probably only necessarily important to understand the laws that you, well, give a shit about. lol.

"But it causes me to believe that the general concensus here may be, that one must have an advanced education in order to think logically or understand the scientific method; that one must be taught logic in a formal education environment in order to apply logic in one's thinking."

i like you already. i didnt even understand the question as you are taking it, but you're very insightful.

"To be honest, I have not had extended studies of logic--other than a computer related math class that had some reference to logic in it (those pesky, AND, OR, NOT {&, ||, <>})"

yea me 2, and i almost fucking the damn thing too. it was a computer math class, and was all about hexidecimal and binary shit... but when we started the stuff like 'find A in 100101a11 - 10101010 = 0101101 i could not grasp why A didnt have a value and why should i care about the value of A... couldnt grasp it. i understood what i had to do, but somehow my brain could not give a rat's ass about A! lol... i spent hours upon extra hours trying to do that shit. i seriously spent triple the time trying to understand why fukkin A was so god damn important... anyways

"My personal experience has also shown that there are many individuals who have low levels of formal education that possess high levels of logic, and apply them on a regular basis."

agreed, and does the average person even give 2 shakes of a something what the names of the laws of logic are.

welcome aboard NUB!
=)

FATTYCHUNKS: Thanks for the welcome, and I think I will enjoy your responses. I will admit, I definately like your attitude already. That was funny about the A=(all those ones and zeroes), I felt the same way--only didn't study as much as you.

DARTH-JOSH: I haven't a clue what google-fu actually means. I thought you were referring to the plain ole google. I am especially intreged by what a logical fallacy is though. I will admit, that I am unfamilar with the term, and this is the first place I have encountered that.

I also don't completely agree with your sig. I guess I take a different approach in that I often hate something until I fully understand it--too often that includes people as well. But, I don't hate anyone here yet, so you may have a valid point.

I guess one of the reason that I even posted here in the first place is because I am intrequed by some of the posts and opinions/views that I have read so far. I am also impressed by what seems to be an above average level of intellegence by the majority of the posters. While I hope to learn a few things here, I also hope to interject a few things that may have been overlooked or previously not considered. I guess we will see how it goes.

So far, I think we are off to a good start.

"google-fu is the martial art that helps you connect mind, body, and keyboard."

LOL
never heard that either, myself

and i've been complimented twice i think... that's a wierd feeling.

also i hope the questions about logic keep coming. and i hope todangst will come correct me on some things that i'm sure i've said wrong. i wanna learn.

"It seems to be unclear how one aquires logic."

technicaly, it's not something that is even a THING, so it's not aquired. it's a function of the brain. it's thought, rational thought and well, it's as good as it gets.

well, ok, because if you ask 'how do you aquire logic' it makes it sound like logic or rational thought is some THING. theists NEED to think it's a THING so they can try to pin it down for being some universal something that doesnt change and must be evidence for divine design or something and so we would have to try to explain WHY it's universal. but it's not. not everyone is even CAPABLE of comprehending logic, which is a sad fact. logic and rational thought are functions of a properly working brain. just like digestion is the function of a properly working stomach. does your stomach aquire digestion? nope, that's it's function.

anyways, wanted to make that note.

"Perhaps it is an aquired skill that can be learned through education and practice. "

we can improve our usage of logic depending on situations, yes, and different laws will apply to different situations. like todangst said a little while ago, theres even some philsophers that deny some laws of logic. whether or not it's truly possible to do so, it still shows that perhaps we're still refining the laws of logic... and i think that's evident when we look at how many theories of logic there are.

"It seems it can be partially explained by the nature/nuture concept though. The instictive logic may have something to do with the chromosomes (those X Y things) and that logic being encoded, but on the other hand, Perhaps it is possible that it can be learned at a young age, at least to some extent. Some kids seem to have a great deal of logic, while others seem to be missing it completely"

that's interesting and i think there has actually been some studies on how the genes effect our brain capabilities... but the cosmos say i'm a born philosopher cuz i'ma sagatarius. and i didnt spell that right and too lazy to check it. har har. but i'm sure we can agree that some people are simply born prone to critical thinking and then some who really are not capable of it.. to a large extent. which really isnt an insult, but i mean when i went to church, i knew that there were some people there that well, they would not be able to find a purpose to life is they didnt believe in god. they were simple people and lived their lives devoted to the simplicity of faith. that's my observation anyways.

"Since this thread appears to be a broad topic about "logic", hopefully that's a valid comment in this thread?"

agreed!
=)

i have not been keeping with this post very closely, but, i do have a question to ask, i appologize if this is redundant.

the thing about that quote is that it asks me (who would put a case against reason in every instance, tho not reason itself) to _argue about it. which is, to me, like saying 'come play on my field, and then ill correct you for not using my rules'

rationalism, logic, and reason are tools. tools that are good for that which they are good for. however, this, in my opinion (and i think im right on this one), stops short of the whole of subjective experience.

i dont want to argue against reason or logic. i just want to say that they arent appropriate all the time. and i would like to ask: if i have the capacity to directly invoke un-reasoned patterns of thought, why should i not?

fair. if something is not complete, dont call it complete.

logic just isnt everything there is. its a nice tool with more than a few applications, but there are a number of things it just cant touch

subjective experience being one, but elements like talking to schizophrenic people as well which, as it turns out, is quite a bit of fun. schizotypal in particular. if you spend time at it, and with a real mind to understand, it will vastly change your definition of what 'makes sense'.

or just talking topeople in general. logic is a tool, but there are subjective irrational decisions in every keystroke and every syllable. we have the uncertainty principle...why cant i use it!?

as for my particular uses for irration: big firey lumps of shit covered...and i mean covered...by mislabeled hope. there is just literally no other way to get rid of them! its so old. so new its still goin through emotions. dont trust the time, things will settle down eventually. and until then, i write a lot of nonsense and i like talking to cats, who do NOT appreciate logic nearly as much as you might guess. i enjoy saying things that i dont expect to say and do not mean at all. its a passtime. it helps me pass the time. like i have to feed it through my sleeves to give the day a kickstart.

and its wormholes for your head. intermittent thoughts dont need to make much sense if you can make it from A to B and back again. and you can get yourself quite a ways out if you want. this is EXPERIENCE. this is not a standardized test!!!

and so, most importantly of all, i just can and thats why. i just dont understand why strip one if both exist?

i am sorry to have implied that you called logic complete. rather, what i was intending to say was that logic is not enough. basically: there is more to understanding daily experience than logical analysis

the subjective experience cannot be experienced logically. it can be viewed from a logical perspective (in retrospect), or dealt with in a logical manner, but to look purely to logic to understand this bizarre aspect of reality is to, in my opinion, ignore the most interesting parts. and even in these cases, 'logic' is built on subjective understanding and not really all that rigid anyway.

as far as speaking with schizophrenics goes, they can use a logic. they just understand connections on a different level than you or i. this is not to say that my perception is more accurate (tho society would certainly tell you so), merely that my mode of communicating typical perception is more dominant (hence the comment about society).

furthermore, using rigid logic to communicate with every individual in every instance is not particularly appealing to me, schizophrenic or otherwise.

uncertainty principle, more or less, is the inability to know the location and velocity of a particle at any given time. in my reference, i was attempting to indicate that even apparently deterministic reality behaves as a cluster of craziness which more happens to yeild apparently logical conditions than one that is built of them.

i am not assuming anything. i know from experience. i have faith. call it whatever you like, but im not arguing, im saying.

interestingly, your statement of using reason to refute reason is what i was responding to in my initial question with the quote from ethan allen. i do not have to use logic. i am free to think and express myself and do as i choose. when i first read the ethan allen quote, my response was as follows (preceded by two lines of nonsense):

to put it plainly: your understanding is not my concern and your validation is not my want. i am not sorry for wasting your wasted time.

and i agree with me 100%. unified, verifiable experience is just not that appealing (or reasonable to expect). complicated discussion made of some mixture of accepted fact and pure speculation, on the other hand, is.

i do think that logic is a good tool, and should be used where it is applicable. a hammer is a good tool, but i dont work on my computer with a hammer. in the same way i dont talk about metaphysics with rigid logic. i accept that subjective bodies do constantly take illogical actions and entertain unreasoned thoughts in ways that i cannot even imagine. therefore, i view unreasoned thought as a valuable tool in understanding the subjective experiences of others as well as my own.

additionally, facts are interesting and everything, but not terribly consequential. the most basic facts of reality that we know and understand in this The Best Time Possible will be recognized as flawed and progress will occur and people will _still_ die.

additionally, i believe the subjective experience to be a function of facts and perspective more than a side-effect of objective reality. subjective truth can justify any 'fact'.

employ logic in decision making, use it in design. let it help you in every wonderful way that it surely can...i just dont think its reasonable to expect it to look into the center of experience and tell you whats going on.