Logic not the only part of being
Posted on: June 20, 2007 - 3:39pm
Offline
Logic not the only part of being
So i have read this many times on these boards and others. My mother has told me this.I am trying to think of the best way to reply to this. To quote someone on another forum "Logic is only one small apsect of one's whole being." What i've said before is that logic isn't a "thing" it's a process.
People usually seem to say it when the way they are arguing is illogical,usually they are arguing with emotion (rhetoric?). They get mad at me becuase i want them to argue for a belief that they want me to accept as true in a logical way. So any ideas? Is it that i want people to argue using logic too much? is that possible?
- Login to post comments
You should just punch her in the face. Then when she asked why you did it, you just return "Logic is only one small aspect of one's whole being". I guess you don't have to punch them in the face, just break something of theirs.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Well, a process is a thing, but I know what you mean: you are saying that there is a difference between an argument and the thing that the argument refers to.
And you may also be saying that people are not entirely logical. True.
Now, ain't that the truth!
Hey, if you can't argue your point logically, you have a choice:
Concede the issue.
Or damn logic!
Guess what most people do?!
I'd say this:
When trying to convince someone of your opinion, you have a choice: To rely on logic or to spurn it. If you choose to spurn logic, then why should I even listen to your claims?
"Hitler burned people like Anne Frank, for that we call him evil.
"God" burns Anne Frank eternally. For that, theists call him 'good.'
Logic might not be the only part of "being" (I'm not even sure what that's supposed to mean), but it certainly is the only part of a rational argument. Logic is the basis of all good, thought out arguments. Sure, there are other ways to argue, but they are logical fallicies. You need logic to have coherency and a foundation to argue on. If we can't agree on the rules of an argument (logic), how could we argue?
I guess your first point is more what i ws referring to. I just see it that people almost think that logic is like a separate entity that exists as like a trait of a person ie this person is happy or this person is logical. Maybe a better way to say it is that they see it as an existent thing that without humans would still exist. I almost think they se it as a being. Evidenced
Also, back to my mother for a bit, when i use logic on her she says not everything is logical, of course not all humans act logical or are logical, but then she uses examples such as when someone with cancer is cured suddenly and without any explanation. This irratates me to no end.
basically from what i have ascertained they mean or want to allow emotion into the argument when they say such absurd things.
When someone argues with emotion, I call it a fight, not an argument. There is a huge difference in being passionate about the topic you're debating/arguing and being emotional about it. If I'm having an emotional argument with someone, I'm going to end up running my mouth, saying hurtful things and ultimately feeling stupid. If I'm arguing something that I feel is important or necessary, I try to keep emotion out of it and stick to the facts.
If god takes life he's an indian giver
People have become comfortable with rationalizing without logic, emotion is sufficient.
Some see logic as a tool, or strategy, and I suppose you could look at it that way. But it is really a method of problem solving, as are guessing and asserting. Some use logic and others do not. But that doesn't excuse not using logic in debate.
When someone produces a statement like a person was cured of cancer without explanation, they are using logic. They believe that such miracles occur and therefore with their own logic have deduced that God did it.
"You don't know everything, so therefore you cannot know God doesn't exist", is a perfectly logical statement. To which you reply "you don't know everything so therefore you cannot know that a God does exist."
Rationality, logic, reason, and emotion can all stem from one's beliefs.
The key to arguments like these is proof. Rearrange your position to deal in facts and evidence. You may not know why the sky is blue, but you know it is, and science does know why, there is evidence. Remember you can't prove a negative. I don't have to prove something invisible is actually not there. The burden of proof is on the one that claims it is there. It's easy to prove an absense of God, the tough part is proving He/She/It/They are there.
Millions of people have been mis-diagnosed, perhaps that cancer wasn't actually there, or perhaps they aren't really cured, or perhaps the story is false. Chemotheraphy and prayer is still medicine. And medicine with courage can be more effective than medicine alone. It's still not proof.
Consider this account closed. It's disgraceful this site has no function to delete an account. I cannot be part of an organization that seeks only to replace the religion of the god of the bible with the religion of "poor me" bleeding heart liberalism. Rational my ass! Not believing in a god is one thing. A rational view of the rest of the world is something else, which isn't found here.
Well of course that's what they want. It's kinda difficult for theists to argue their position with out appealing to emotion or faith. And both are just major cop-outs, ways they think they can end an argument without being defeated. Though I don't really recommend it, if this is brought up in an argument, start talking about how the moon is made of purple fairy dust, and just say you feel really strongly that this is so and that it makes you feel much better to think this. I know it's absurd, childish, and patronizing (which is why I don't recommend it), but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.