Saturday, November 15, 2014
Artificially Opposed Unnatural Foes
Omar Clifton - Not always true doh, I'd say faith and knowledge as they cancel each other out. You can believe what you know for sure. You can however have faith that something 90% probable will happen. Logic isn't always 100%
Clifton Hatchett - Knowledge and Logic are not synonymous.
Omar Clifton - That to is true. Most people equate them however.
Clifton Hatchett - fortunately we are not them....
Omar Clifton - That too is true.
Rhys Hughes - That is illogical, Clifton...
Rhys Hughes - "Spock... I need to know how... babies are made..."
"That is biological, Captain."
Clifton Hatchett - Rhys...you are so very consistent....lol, top of the morning or whatever time it is in the Kingdom.
Rhys Hughes - 12:34, just after noon :-)
Rhys Hughes - I like the Irish greeting, by the way. Thanks! :-)
Clifton Hatchett - Good afternoon friend
Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: "Faith and Logic are light years apart."
How so? It would depend on the discussion. Give me an example.
Clifton Hatchett - Faith is belief that isn't depended upon proof, that in and of itself isn't logical.
Muhammad Rasheed - "Logic" itself doesn't function in that narrow a framework... you can discuss a belief-based system logically. It's a matter of the various elements making sense within their own context. In this particular subject, the illogical comes into play -- not from the belief system itself necessarily -- but from attempts to shoehorn the faith-based system into areas it was never intended to go. The biggest example is the whole "proof" thing. Asking for proof from a system that by definition isn't required to produce it, isn't a trait of the intelligent, but is the illogical symptom of a narrow mind.
Clifton Hatchett - Completely cyclical, as such I must disagree.
Muhammad Rasheed - Explain, please. It's not cyclical; it's a classic inductive logical argument. It's appropriate in this model because it leaves breathing room for a human's inherent inability to know everything. Faith by its nature is part of that same package, but on a purer scale. We have faith that there are things, realms, concepts, ideas, potentialities in existence that we do not yet know (or cannot know), and inductive logic makes allowances for our natural weakness in that area.
To use a different, less applicable form of logical argument to judge belief systems by, demonstrates a poor understanding of how logic actually works, and how large and expansive the discipline is.
Clifton Hatchett - Cyclical, Repetitive, and worded beautifully with a rhetoric worthy of some of the better orators of old. Entertaining, but not very impressive. I contend that you have come to a flawed conclusion. Such an outcome is to be expected when one is not aware of common inductive fallacies. You have assumed a logic can be ascertained through the practicing of a system, in this instant belief, in which you had previously noted logic was not applicable. You offer this up as a rebuttal of my original post, yet in actuality you have done nothing of the sort, to the contrary you have proven the accuracy of the post. Never have I implemented or implied the one possessing faith is to be viewed in a bad light, only that logic is not necessitated with the observance of faith.Hasty generalizations are beneath what I had come to expect of you Mr. Muhammad. Perhaps I will cast judgement of your cognitive functions differently now.
Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: “Cyclical, Repetitive, and worded beautifully with a rhetoric worthy of some of the better orators of old. Entertaining, but not very impressive. I contend that you have come to a flawed conclusion. Such an outcome is to be expected when one is not aware of common inductive fallacies.”
There are no fallacies in the inductive logical argument tool. Traditional philosophers didn’t like it because it forces you to admit you don’t/can’t know everything. The secular humanist mindset hates that shit.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “You have assumed a logic can be ascertained through the practicing of a system, in this instant belief, in which you had previously noted logic was not applicable.”
You are confused. Let me explain again: There are different forms of logical argument, with inductive reasoning being but one. All of them use logic as a tool, and each is most applicable within a given sphere. In the system of belief, logic is applicable, but not all logical argument models are applicable.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “You offer this up as a rebuttal of my original post, yet in actuality you have done nothing of the sort, to the contrary you have proven the accuracy of the post.”
The only thing that will counter my post’s content, is a strong counterargument that negates it. Do you plan to provide one for me to analyze and counter back?
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “Never have I implemented or implied the one possessing faith is to be viewed in a bad light, only that logic is not necessitated with the observance of faith.”
It would help if you managed to come to grips on a more accurate definition and usage of “logic.” Then we can get somewhere. Hurry up.
Clifton Hatchett wrote: “Hasty generalizations are beneath what I had come to expect of you Mr. Muhammad. Perhaps I will cast judgement of your cognitive functions differently now.”
You have my permission to think of me and my functions in any way you please, as long as you get busy formulating an actual counterargument. Assuming you have one, of course. I await your next post with interest.
Clifton Hatchett - You assume from a false pretense. A counterargument would be an acknowledgement of validity to your contention, and though articulated superbly, it is devoid of logic, and laced with passion, as such your proclamation that ''The only thing that will counter my post's content, is a strong counterargument that negates it.'' is irrevocably, and beyond all shadow of doubt, ridiculous, inasmuch as your original attempted rebuttal was flawed from the inception. My contention stands as is, completely irrefutable. Carry on brother Muhammad, I do enjoy your rhetoric. I am entertained.
Muhammad Rasheed So you don't have a counterargument? Well, checkmate.
Muhammad Rasheed - My thread now.
Clifton Hachett -
Clifton Hatchett - I said carry on. This is truly entertaining.
Muhammad Rasheed - It would've been entertaining if you would've put forth the effort to counter my post. Watching you desperately flip around like a fish is boring and a little sad. awww...
Clifton Hachett - Projection. You are familiar with term for sure, as you demonstrate the condition so well. I need not define the term for one such as yourself.
Muhammad Rasheed - Are you going to keep wasting words flippin' around or fight?
Muhammad Rasheed - Pick that king up and let's GO.
Muhammad Rasheed - Hurry up, I have to get back to this Destroyer thing in another couple of hours.
Clifton Hatchett - Why do you persist...to be humbled can be cathartic, and permit time to reflect upon the error of your ways. I will post something again soon enough to which you will be allowed to respond.
Muhammad Rasheed - Dammit didn't I say I'm in a hurry? COME ON! I'm double parked!
Clifton Hatchett - lol
Muhammad Rasheed - Clifton Hatchett wrote: "Why do you persist...to be humbled can be cathartic, and permit time to reflect upon the error of your ways."
Who's going to humble me? You?
Kinda difficult if you refuse to engage. You need to learn to not give up so fast. Throwing a hodge-podge word salad at me is not going to humble me, only a rock solid argument that I cannot refute. Get busy putting THAT baby together. There's a lad.
Clifton Hatchett - Persist as you see fit. Most jesters do not share your zealotry.
Muhammad Rasheed - You know I'm more than a jester. I ask that you accept my challenge and prove that you are more than a hit-n-run pseudo-philosopher. OPEN UP! Let’s see what your Middlegame looks like. I certainly hope it consists of more than you simply tipping over a thesaurus upon the page. You can’t be an intellectual if you lack the ability to demonstrate your acumen through a spirited competitive dialog, Clifton. Engarde.
You created the status post, now plant your feet and defend it. Go.
Muhammad Rasheed - “The great outline of research comes to light best in dialog.” ~Otto Toeplitz, mathematician (1 Aug 1881 – 15 Feb 1940)
Muhammad Rasheed - You shine the spotlight on your own lack of research when your side of the dialog comes to an abrupt halt as soon as you're challenged. Get your game up.
Clifton Hatchett - Temper Tantrums are unbecoming.