Originally Posted by WicKeD ASSaSiN

Gimme your definition of a religion. I want to try to use it against you.

My personal stance is that religion is any belief system positing supernatural explanations for natural phenomena. Agnosticism simply says, "I don't know whether religion is right or wrong." Weak atheism is lack of belief in religion due to lack of positive evidence. Strong atheism is the claim that religion is false beyond a reasonable doubt. As I've found more evidence over the course of my life, I've gone through all of those phases, in that order, settling so far on the last one.

inb4whatevidenceoverthecourseofyourlife

Originally Posted by WicKeD ASSaSiN

False. Logic is the most quintessential form of faith, really. Atheism is the most hypocritical of all religions.

Swing and a miss.

Originally Posted by WicKeD ASSaSiN

False. Logic is the most quintessential form of faith, really.

Nope.

Well, ok. TECHNICALLY axioms have to be assumed, but they only have to be assumed because without those very fundamental assumptions, nothing can be deduced. Since religion clearly doesn't have the same role of absolute necessity, that's a moot comparison.

Originally Posted by WicKeD ASSaSiN

Atheism is the most hypocritical of all religions.

You're calling the belief in no religion... a religion?

>_<

Originally Posted by FraGTaLiTy

Logic isn't a form of philosophy... nor is it self-defeating.

Yes, it is philosophy, and it's necessarily incomplete. There are true statements that cannot be proven true and, conversely, there are false statements for which it cannot be proven that they cannot be proven true, else they could be proven true.

Originally Posted by WicKeD ASSaSiN

False. Logic is the most quintessential form of faith, really

No it isn't. I'd give that title to faith in the consistency of the external world, manifesting in the principle of uniformity. Close behind are Platonism/realism/dualism and induction.

Originally Posted by WicKeD ASSaSiN

Atheism is the most hypocritical of all religions.

Nope.jpg.


But it'd be instructive if everyone read up on philosophy of science and, at least, some Quine.

Originally Posted by davobrosia

Yes, it is philosophy, and it's necessarily incomplete. There are true statements that cannot be proven true and, conversely, there are false statements for which it cannot be proven that they cannot be proven true, else they could be proven true.

Logic is philosophy, but logic is not a single form of philosophy. I bring this up because that implies there exists forms of philosophy that don't contain logic, which is what I think he was getting at. At least, that's what I personally gathered when he wrote: "heh logic is such a self-defeating philosophy". I think it's clear he was trying to claim philosophical forms that don't include logic not only exist, but are superior.

edit. I feel like I've worded this horribly. Basically, my point was that logic and philosophy cannot be separated, and he is implying not only that they can be separated, but that philosophy without logic is superior.

Originally Posted by FraGTaLiTy

Logic is philosophy, but logic is not a single form of philosophy

The academic use of the term is different from the layman's use. Logic as an academic study might deal with second order logic:

Set theory:

Modal/temporal:

And so on.

I bring this up because that implies there exists forms of philosophy that don't contain logic, which is what I think he was getting at. At least, that's what I personally gathered when he wrote: "heh logic is such a self-defeating philosophy". I think it's clear he was trying to claim philosophical forms that don't include logic not only exist, but are superior.

Substitute "existentialism" for "logic" and the statement is just as coherent. Both are fields of academic philosophical inquiry. Via the principle of charity, if we read his post as referring to the academic field of logic, it makes since. He's still wrong, but you're wrong about why he's wrong.



There are just as many problems in logic as there are in any other philosophical field. Layman's definitions are inadequate here; most philosophical arguments don't use anything more complicated than basic propositional logic and even then rarely use symbolic logic at all.

Existentialism is separated from logic? If logic is separated from existentialism, how can anything be considered correct or wrong in that field?

It was an example to show that it's a coherent statement when the context is an academic field. Again, the term means something different in an academic context.


And just by chance (or because I planned it this way), existentialist philosophy has plenty of ideas that contradict traditional, intuitive logic--however, academic logic is a diverse field, and, say, paraconsistent logic, is a totally different beast from first-order.

It's like comparing apples to acorns.

Alright. I get what you're saying.