I hate this part

[DennisK]

I have come to the conclusion that logic is subjective.  To us theist have no logic when they chose to believe in fantasy.  On the other hand, theists think it's illogical not to have faith.  We see truth in scientific proof and they see truth through indoctrination, dogma and invisible hope.  Both sides of the fence use their own 'truths' to support their beliefs and easily find ways to discount the others' claims.

That is far from accurate. Faith is not a subset of logic. You're straying too far from the definition of logic and making up you own overly vague definition, something like "logic - the way a person thinks" and it's clear to me that this redefining of words is a habit of a person who does too much talking and too little listening. A person who does desire to gain understanding, mind you, but thinks she can take a shortcut by spouting pseudo wisdom and thinking of everything as a yin yang.

Let me explain what I think you were doing when you made this preposterous statement. Try to follow me here.

The "shortcut" I was referring to is this branching off from both opposing viewpoints and confusing novelty with accuracy. Or confusing neutrality with accuracy. It is obviously difficult for anyone's ego to accept your assertion about logic and faith, but that difficulty has no correlation with accuracy. You seem to think reality is something one has to admit to. I think reality is something that one has to observe.

Read up on what logic is, because you have a huge misunderstanding of it. And pay extra attention to the second law of logic (non-contradiction) because from your assertion, you seem to think that a conjunctive proposition can be both true and false at the same time and in the same respect.

I do understand the definition of the term and don't think religious people are logical.  The first sentence was slightly tongue in cheek.  What I was trying to say was that most religious people don't feel they are illogical or unreasonable when it comes to their beliefs.  It's about perspective.

[Arthur Dent]

I understood what he meant! :-p

[Sophus]

Don't get me wrong. I delight in being opposed. But you really don't give me enough to go on here, and I don't want this to turn into another case of contrarian vs. adulator, so I'm going to point out why I was really unsatisfied with your adulation.

I'm not flattering anyone. Merely returning the transparent audacity in your statements.

Perhaps you are more familiar with the user than I am (which would explain your predisposition and commitment to adulation), but from the words in the post, it would be ridiculous for me to come away thinking that he meant anything but that. Again, emphatically, yes, he did say they were being logical. If logic is subjective then they could very well be. That is exactly what he said. Exactly.

If he meant something else, then I have no qualms with that. But I don't know what he meant. I only know what he said, and what he said was absolute rubbish.

I can forgive forgetfulness. Over look his post again.

Yes, he did, but he also went on to say other things, which I disagreed with. I never claimed to disagree with the above statement.

Of course not. You only wished to add more words into his mouth.

Neither "logic" nor "reason" is appropriate. Faith is fundamentally different from both, and is a subset of neither.

There is a reason for everything. Faith, of course, is different from logic. But there are reasons for that preference in faith. What decides upon what reason is? The human mind. Thus what is a reason for a theist may not be reason for you. It doesn't change the fact that there's still a reason for their beliefs. Simply because another's reasoning doesn't align with yours and you may see it as absurd, does not mean it isn't a reason. A reason doesn't have to meet your expectations to meet its definition.

I really don't know what else to say, except that I'm disappointed with the pandering on this forum.

Woe is me.

When I read a post, I pay very little attention to who is saying it, because that's irrelevant. I judge only the content of the post, even if I've known the user very well and have respect for them. This is is the only way we are going to find answers together, if we challenge each other, sharpen each other, when we are convicted to do so by reason.

Unfortunately, you didn't pay attention to what was being said. In the past when I try to point this out to people who share your same idiosyncrasy, it never seems to work because they absolutely refuse to reread the post with a fresh mind. We remember how we felt when we experienced something before we remember what we actually learned. You're letting an initial perception hinder you from learning.


Wechtlein Uns

I wonder if the question is really more along the lines of "can we change?"

Some people can change their worldview, while others never diverge from how they were brought up. It would be nice to have an answer that explains why.

Psychology explains this. Beliefs can change when new and valid evidence or reasoning is presented so long as the mind is not hidebound. The stubbornness is common because nobody wants to think that they've spent so much of their life living a lie. Most proselytes are either very open-minded are weren't ever firmly rooted in their beliefs in the first place. I would also say there are also those who are extremely pretentious in their beliefs. So much so that they go beyond stubbornness and resort to a pseudo life out of desperation. Thus beliefs aren't subject to will but denying and resisting them certainly is.

[Wraitchel]

Nearbroken,

I have a very dear friend who is a fundy, married to a fundy preacher. Her whole life is wrapped around the concept of christ being the only important thing. She can't afford to question it. Long decades ago, she converted me briefly to fundy-ism. I tried my best, but I couldn't make all that doublespeak stick. My neural pathways couldn't stay on that narrow and circuitous (circular logic) track. Now we just don't talk about religion at all. We choose to remain friends, at the cost of complete honesty and openness. It is worthwhile for both of us. I would never dream of prying her religion away from her. Lucky for me, she believes that prayer is her best chance at seeing me saved again, so she never presses me. Under it all, I think she fears to go down that path because her faith is not built on solid ground. I could be wrong.

What I'm saying to you is that if your friend is important to you, perhaps you could work a similar bargain with him. Tell him you'd welcome his prayers, but that it is your path to choose. It is probably futile to argue with him. Apparently he really needs his imaginary friend.

[dodgecity]

You're letting an initial perception hinder you from learning.

To be honest, that scares me more than the prospect of losing this pissing contest. I concede.

I read it again. It seems as if we disagree on very little besides semantics. When I heard "logic" I thought he was referring to the philosophical term, so I had a completely different take on the post.

[Sophus]

You're letting an initial perception hinder you from learning.

To be honest, that scares me more than the prospect of losing this pissing contest. I concede.

I read it again. It seems as if we disagree on very little besides semantics. When I heard "logic" I thought he was referring to the philosophical term, so I had a completely different take on the post.

Seems to me more and more of these little debates on this forum boil down to semantics anymore. Oh well...