Did you first prove that logic was qualified to speak to the issue at hand? — Isaac
If someone were to quote some holy book it would be reasonable to ask that they first prove that the holy book is qualified to speak to the issue at hand. — Jake
These examples are mainly to demonstrate that ‘psychic phenomena’ is not as ‘out there’ as some people think. — Possibility
It is delusion if it exists in your mind and nowhere else but your mind. It is not a delusion when it corresponds with events in the external world. And my experiences very much do have a correspondence with the external world. — Ilya B Shambat
I'm unable to take it for anything if it's vague and has no bearing on the conversation. That's why I asked you to elaborate, but if you're unwilling to speak with clarity, there's nothing I can do about it. — whollyrolling
If someone were to quote some holy book it would be reasonable to ask that they first prove that the holy book is qualified to speak to the issue at hand. — Jake
No one here is a philosopher, but at least some people contribute to coherent or even rational discourse. — whollyrolling
He is hopelessly trapped in his own self-defeating performative contradiction. — S
You’re taking a statement out of context. I wasn’t talking about extraordinary claims - I was talking about intuition, falling in love, ‘gut’ instinct, etc: the ‘feelings’ that we tentatively accept as part of human experience, yet in a rational discussion we’d probably dismiss them. The scare quotes are there for a reason - ‘psychic phenomena’ was praxis’ term, not mine. — Possibility
Yes, so is it cruel of me to poke him just to watch him run against the wall? What do you do with these people? I hadn't realised posting here would raise such ethical dilemmas. Its more like working as an orderly in an asylum than discussing issues with peers.... "Yes Napoleon, I'm sure the aliens are coming to take you away again, but it'll all be better if you just take your pills and sit calmy down here..." — Isaac
The point is you are using logic and reason right now to make this argument, so, by your method, you would first have to establish that logic and reason have authority to speak to this kind of investigation. — Isaac
At some point, logic and reason are simply presumed. — Isaac
I have clearly proven that logic and reason are qualified to address the topic I am addressing. — Jake
Atheists typically have a faith based relationship with reason that they are often unwilling to examine, because to do so would lead to a collapse of their perspective. — Jake
My point is that we CAN use reason to reveal that nobody on any side has been able to prove anything, in spite of the earnest efforts of millions of intelligent people over a period of at least 500 years. — Jake
My point is that we CAN use reason to reveal that nobody on any side can prove the qualification of their chosen authority — Jake
My point is that we CAN use reason to then explore our relationship with this nothing, with this state of ignorance. — Jake
What is it about this debate we're having right now that differs from the debate about God's existence that justifies you raising counter-arguments using reason and logic? — Isaac
Do you believe it reasonable to question the qualifications of holy books in regards to the largest of questions? — Jake
If you answer yes, then why are you resisting performing the same operation on other chosen authorities? — Jake
Logic and reason are ways of thinking presumed from the start of any discourse. — Isaac
Logic and reason are ways of thinking presumed from the start of any discourse. The Bible is a book. — Isaac
What is it about this debate we're having right now that differs from the debate about God's existence that justifies you raising counter-arguments using reason and logic? — Isaac
Logic and reason are the chosen authorities of atheists. The Bible is the chosen authority of Jews and Christians. You wish to apply one rule to theist authorities, and another rule to atheist authorities. That's not reason. That's ideology. — Jake
Are you saying that we should assume without questioning that human reason is qualified to deliver meaningful credible statements on any subject? — Jake
Logic and reason are the chosen authorities of atheists. The Bible is the chosen authority of Jews and Christians. You wish to apply one rule to theist authorities, and another rule to atheist authorities. That's not reason. That's ideology. — Jake
I can offer real world documented evidence that atheists rarely (if ever) are willing to examine and challenge their chosen authority in the same way that they challenge theist authorities. — Jake
Yes, both 'meaninful' and 'credible' are are assessment within logic and reason. What faculty would you use otherwise to determine what a text is even saying? How would you even understand the meaning of a sentence, let alone a proposition, if you suspend logic and reason. I think you are confusing logic and reason with empirical science and you're confusing 'source' with 'authority'. — Isaac
Are you saying that we should assume without questioning that human reason is qualified to deliver meaningful credible statements on any subject? — Jake
Empirical science is certainly not the only means, nor the only source from which to obtain meaningful propositions, but it is the closest we have to an 'authority'. — Isaac
An authority needs to have some justifiable claim to support its rejection of other propositions. Empirical science has such a claim (propositions it rejects are those which do not produce predictable results for a wide proportion of the population). — Isaac
Religious texts have no such justification and therefore no justified claim to authority. — Isaac
Logic and reason are not 'authorities' they are habits of thinking and they cannot be suspended whilst maintaining even the very basic intellectual faculties such as reading. — Isaac
On cannot even comprehend what is written in the Bible without logic and reason. — Isaac
That doesn't prove whether thay should (which is the debate we're having), only that they don't. — Isaac
No, failure to apply logic and reason to logic and reason is irrational — praxis
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.