At 4/18/09 02:49 PM, altmeister wrote: Logic can only be achieved by reading the scripture of the Lord. Tell me atheists, how can something come from nothing?

The Bible never says anything about "logic." The terms "logic" and "wisdom," which is the closest semblance of the word "logic" that appears in the Bible, are different. "Logic" is the use of past experiences to understand the present and future. (I know that I am not explaining in the best terms. For instance, one sees some sort of creature with four paws, a tail, a somewhat long nose and which makes a barking noise. This person already knows from past experiences that a dog has four paws, a tail, a somewhat long nose and makes a barking sound; therefore, he or she might logically assume this creature is a dog.) "Wisdom," which is the term used in the Bible, is the knowledge that one achieves through experience. (I assume you are referring to this term as mentioned in either Ecclesiastes or the Song of Solomon--or, it might possibly be mentioned in both.) For example, the aforementioned person's knowledge that a dog has four paws, a tail, a somewhat long nose and makes a barking sound approximates "wisdom." The person did not use logic to attain this knowledge but rather experience granted the person this knowledge. Perhaps "logic" is the use of "wisdom" to attain further knowledge. Anyway, the Bible does not say that "logic [or, even "wisdom" to use the term written in the Bible] can only be achieved by reading the scripture of the Lord." Rather, the Bible states that one obtains wisdom through a fear of the Lord--or, in more understandable terms, an appreciation of creation.

Atheists seem to think that we just evolved from a bang, that we used to be monkeys, that seems to be unbelievable when you look at the complexity of the human body. If you tell children there is no purpose of life - that they are just a chemical mutation - that doesn't build self esteem.

Regardless of whether or not God created the universe, something was created from nothing. Furthermore, the Big Bang Theory never describes the occurrences before the actual explosion, so one cannot accurately claim that the Big Bang Theory assumes that something emerged from nothing. Until the day when humanity extrapolates the occurrences preceding the massive explosion, if anything actually existed beyond that explosion, one can only conjecture about such things. Besides, the emergence of organic matter from inorganic matter is not even remotely comparable to "something from nothing." Besides, it is a proven fact that inorganic does coalesce into organic forms in nature--though certainly not immediately into forms as complex as human beings of other complex organisms.

Regarding the belief that humans derived from monkeys, I really hope you are not equating Darwin's theory of evolution with such a belief. Darwin never stated that humans derived from monkeys; rather, this was a perversion of his theory made by those attempting to discredit his theory.

Supposing there is a purpose to life, this purpose certainly does not exist to build the self-esteem of the individual. I would say that saying to a child, "unless one embraces Christianity God will unblinkingly banish that person to Hell," which is the epitome of "scare tactics," is no better than the denial of a purpose to life.

At 4/18/09 02:49 PM, altmeister wrote: Logic can only be achieved by reading the scripture of the Lord.

I am an atheist, I have never read a bible, and I am logical, so that disproves your argument. As a matter of fact, the argument itself is illogical. Logic, and I am taking a guess at this, but I would reckon logic come from intelligence. Now, it has been scientificly proven that those who do not believe in religion have statisticly higer average intelligence.

Tell me atheists, how can something come from nothing?

Maybe you should ask yourself that. Where did God come from? Nothing. He cannot have always existed without you compromising your own argument.

Atheists seem to think that we just evolved from a bang,

Clever, evolving from a burst of energy. The big bang was a catalyst for evolution, and it did start creation. Furthermore there is scientific evidence to prove that it happened, and not only does it make more sense than religion, but there is also evidence. Try and give me one single iota of absolute solid evidence of God.

that we used to be monkeys,

No, we evolved from a specific descendant of the primate family, of which we belong.

that seems to be unbelievable when you look at the complexity of the human body.

Not when you take a look at the biology of primates, and their descendants, and see it is basicly the same with bits added or taken away.

If you tell children there is no purpose of life - that they are just a chemical mutation - that doesn't build self esteem.

So you are saying it is better for them to live in a fantasy, a delusion in which they try to account things to a divine creator, instead of using their own minds to prove it for themselves? Maybe this proves why Atheists are more intelligent.

All in all, I think you should step away from religion and embrace science.

At 4/18/09 07:15 AM, pyromaniac616 wrote: And finaly, surely someone like Dexter is purely logical and unemotional, of course, he is a serial killer, but he is has good and logical intentions. Surely even if you had a society of cold, logical serial killers would be better than illogical headstrong citizens, like we have now.

Yeah, great, a society of everybody killing everybody else "for the greater good" and having no emotions about it. Eventually there would be no one else. (For the record Dexter is good, just a society of Dexters can't work.)You must remember Dexter can not help but kill, so he chooses to help normal society.

At 4/19/09 10:43 AM, pyromaniac616 wrote:

At 4/18/09 02:49 PM, altmeister wrote: Logic can only be achieved by reading the scripture of the Lord.

I am an atheist, I have never read a bible, and I am logical, so that disproves your argument. As a matter of fact, the argument itself is illogical. Logic, and I am taking a guess at this, but I would reckon logic come from intelligence. Now, it has been scientificly proven that those who do not believe in religion have statisticly higer average intelligence.

Not that I necessarily disbelieve you, but do you have any sources of this? This is a rather bold statement that necessitates rather extensive evidence. I really do not think that statistically higher intelligence really proves anything other than what the test concludes; in other words, I do not think that one can necessarily say that wisdom does not originate from a specific entity because those who follow that entity are statistically less intelligent than those who do not follow this entity.

Atheists seem to think that we just evolved from a bang,

Clever, evolving from a burst of energy. The big bang was a catalyst for evolution, and it did start creation. Furthermore there is scientific evidence to prove that it happened, and not only does it make more sense than religion, but there is also evidence. Try and give me one single iota of absolute solid evidence of God.

I myself do not see how proof of the Big Bang automatically denies the existence of God or some other such creative being or force. For starters, the Big Bang Theory itself was developed by a Christian theologian and scientist, which contemporary theologians declared heresy and contemporary scientists declared an evidence against religion. In fact, other than the interpretative beliefs of religious conservatives (not in the political sense of the term) who adamantly refused the possibility of such theories coinciding with the Bible, these theories contradict no known teachings of the Bible. The Big Bang does not necessarily deny the existence; in fact, scientific theories, or laws for that matter, rarely contradict religious views, other than what religious individuals interpret from the teachings of their respective religions. If you can show me some way in which the Big Band debunks religion, excluding the interpretations and musings of theologians, then perhaps I will believe that there is no God. I suppose that one may mistake for a Creationist, which as the sentence implies is a mistake and nothing more or less. For one, I do not believe that evolution opposes religion, though neither do I believe that Darwin's theories suppose the evolution of humans from monkeys or from fish or from bacteria (which from your statement of humans evolving from the forerunners of their particular grouping of primates, I assume you do not suppose this either--or, at least, it seems this way). To say that evolution necessarily contradicts the idea of some form of supreme being or force is not only wholly ignorant but also necessarily limiting of the supremacy of such a being. (The previous statement is more aimed at Christians and those following other religions than at irreligious people.)

that we used to be monkeys,

No, we evolved from a specific descendant of the primate family, of which we belong.

that seems to be unbelievable when you look at the complexity of the human body.

Not when you take a look at the biology of primates, and their descendants, and see it is basicly the same with bits added or taken away.

Such similarity appears in the DNA of all living organisms on Earth. This is primarily because life on Earth, though diverse in relative terms, is not actually all that diverse when compared with the entire gamut of the elements. Carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen, along with other trace elements that aid in the existence of the three primary organic elements, form the foundation of all life. Three of the countless number of elements--there are possibly an infinite number of elements, except that many elements do not occur naturally on Earth and humanity has only seen a fraction of the possible elements--is anything but diverse. (To expand on the possibility of there being a near infinite number of elements, this can be evinced by the fact that humanity has already created atoms which are much larger than any which naturally occur on Earth. Furthermore, since many of the larger elements, especially those larger than uranium, are generally, if not always, radioactive, this means that at the moment of the Big Bang, atoms exponentially larger than those currently achievable by human technology possibly existed, though since such massive atoms would most likely be highly radioactive these atoms would have almost immediately decayed into increasingly smaller and smaller atoms. Also, atoms, regardless of their size, are in a constant, albeit slower as atoms become smaller, state of decay; in other words, given enough time, atoms will disintegrate into the smallest possible form, whatever that be, whether hydrogen atoms or the individual parts of the atoms themselves or the subparticles and so on. Perhaps the Big Bang was the result of the radioactive decay of a enormously massive atom, perhaps trillions or more times larger than any known atoms--natural or synthetic.

At 4/13/09 08:11 AM, pyromaniac616 wrote: Newgrounds, do you think that a goverment based purely upon logic, and critical path analysis would work to be a fully functioning society?

I have dreamed of that day...for so long.

Firstly, I would like to say that you have provided the best argument for Theism I have ever seen.

At 4/19/09 10:55 PM, Shintogoru wrote:

Not that I necessarily disbelieve you, but do you have any sources of this? This is a rather bold statement that necessitates rather extensive evidence. I really do not think that statistically higher intelligence really proves anything other than what the test concludes; in other words, I do not think that one can necessarily say that wisdom does not originate from a specific entity because those who follow that entity are statistically less intelligent than those who do not follow this entity.

http://www.radicalatheist.com/2007/10/ye s_we_are_smarter_than_christ.html
http://uberkuh.com/node/244
http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/
8-are-theists-less-intelligent-than-athe ists
http://www.atheistmissionary.com/2009/02 /why-are-atheists-smarter-than-theists.h tml
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?
qid=20090404224221AAL01f6
http://www.funadvice.com/q/atheists_vs_t heists_in_terms_of_intelligence
http://www.doxa.ws/other/smarter.html
http://able2know.org/topic/90688-1

A few links for you to look into.

::

Such similarity appears in the DNA of all living organisms on Earth.

Yes, but it is the certain parts we share with our primate relatives that is of importance. I do know that we share about 60% or more of our DNA with a bannanna.

Perhaps the Big Bang was the result of the radioactive decay of a enormously massive atom, perhaps trillions or more times larger than any known atoms--natural or synthetic.

That is quite a good thought. I cannot think how to disprove it.

But all in all, this is not a religious topic, so please, go back to the discussion at hand.

At 4/20/09 11:58 AM, pyromaniac616 wrote: Firstly, I would like to say that you have provided the best argument for Theism I have ever seen.

At 4/19/09 10:55 PM, Shintogoru wrote:

Not that I necessarily disbelieve you, but do you have any sources of this? This is a rather bold statement that necessitates rather extensive evidence. I really do not think that statistically higher intelligence really proves anything other than what the test concludes; in other words, I do not think that one can necessarily say that wisdom does not originate from a specific entity because those who follow that entity are statistically less intelligent than those who do not follow this entity.

http://www.radicalatheist.com/2007/10/ye s_we_are_smarter_than_christ.html
http://uberkuh.com/node/244
http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/
8-are-theists-less-intelligent-than-athe ists
http://www.atheistmissionary.com/2009/02 /why-are-atheists-smarter-than-theists.h tml
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?
qid=20090404224221AAL01f6
http://www.funadvice.com/q/atheists_vs_t heists_in_terms_of_intelligence
http://www.doxa.ws/other/smarter.html
http://able2know.org/topic/90688-1

A few links for you to look into.

Before I continue this discussion, I would like to let it be known that I believe that there are intelligent atheists and intelligent theists and so I am not implying the inverse--being that theists are statistically more intelligent--of your belief that atheists are statistically more intelligent.
The question and answer sites are by no means "definitive" sources of the concept of the statistically higher intelligence of atheists over theists. For one, the audience of this topic is self-selective--in that, only those looking for this topic find it; for the most part, the Christians who flocked to that topic are those who prove your point. The first, third, fourth links are obviously biased since the sites are inherently inclined toward atheism. The "Fun Advice" site is blocked on my internet connection since I attend a conservative private university (do not assume from this that I am a conservative because I am, in fact, a liberal) on the basis of its apparently being a "Dating/Social Networking" site. I followed the Doxa link and found something that shows that the tests sited as evidence do not target the entirety of theists but rather "conservative" theists. The statement describes a study undertaken by Thomas Howells and says, "Study of 461 students showed religiously conservative students "are, in general, relatively inferior in intellectual ability." Furthermore, "There is a constant positive relation in all the groups between liberal religious thinking and mental ability... There is also a constant positive relation between liberal scores and intelligence...." The latter quote states not that atheists are smarter than theists but that more liberal theists are statistically smarter than conservative theists with no mention whatsoever of atheistic intelligence. I suppose I will concede the point that atheists more than likely more intelligent than conservative theists, but I would say that there is also a good chance that a liberal theist might well be more intelligent than a conservative atheist. (Liberalism and conservatism here does not mean one's political inclination but rather one's tendency to deny or accept scientifically proven facts.) I have no means by which to prove this with complete certainty. I would say that the lack of intelligence by many theists stems from their inability to understand that most of the scientific theories and laws of the day really do not contradict or deny the supposed correctness of theism. The reason these scientific theories and laws are seen to contradict religion is because the theists who believe that such theories do contradict religion are the ones to whom atheists are drawn as examples of how ignorant theism is in compared to atheism. Science does not necessarily favor atheism or theism; rather, atheism favors science and religion disfavors science. Therefore, science then lends itself to atheism since atheists are the majority of those who accept the findings of science. So, the problem is cyclical.

Such similarity appears in the DNA of all living organisms on Earth.

Yes, but it is the certain parts we share with our primate relatives that is of importance. I do know that we share about 60% or more of our DNA with a bannanna.

I understood your point and did not mean to trivialize the similarities between humanity and its primate forerunners. Rather, I was merely clarifying to altmeister, in case he or she did not know, that all life maintains striking resemblances even between the most different forms of life on Earth.

Perhaps the Big Bang was the result of the radioactive decay of a enormously massive atom, perhaps trillions or more times larger than any known atoms--natural or synthetic.

That is quite a good thought. I cannot think how to disprove it.

But all in all, this is not a religious topic, so please, go back to the discussion at hand.

I know, and I apologize for the digression.

Theoretically we could probably run a model on this once a far more devolped form of A.I and robotics has actually been achieved.

While i am a big fan of many situations taking the logical route and such the "I'm only human" phrase is partially true, we are humans and not robots at the end of the day.

Basically we would have to become some life like vulcan race in terms of emotion suppresion, religion almost abolished(Teachings and or lifestyles such as bud monks would be more common i would think) and society changed to teach logical values and such.

Allthough what kind of route would have to be taken to literally force our bodies to evolve to change to a type of existance where we were almost like robots. would be an interesting one. Either that or we would all die of tumors and/or lash out around our 40's after years of emotional suppression.

At 4/18/09 02:49 PM, altmeister wrote: Logic can only be achieved by reading the scripture of the Lord. Tell me atheists, how can something come from nothing?

Clearly you misunderstand what "Logos" means......

in any case, someone smart once said it's not possible for people to be illogical, only to be irrational.
So I find the premise moot.

At 4/20/09 02:50 PM, Jinzoa wrote: Theoretically we could probably run a model on this once a far more devolped form of A.I and robotics has actually been achieved.

I believe such technology is only one or two years ahead of us.

While i am a big fan of many situations taking the logical route and such the "I'm only human" phrase is partially true, we are humans and not robots at the end of the day.

Yes, but what if the difference between humans and robots was decreased?

Basically we would have to become some life like vulcan race in terms of emotion suppresion, religion almost abolished(Teachings and or lifestyles such as bud monks would be more common i would think) and society changed to teach logical values and such.

Buddhists are like atheists. They don't follow a religion, they follow a philosophy

Allthough what kind of route would have to be taken to literally force our bodies to evolve to change to a type of existance where we were almost like robots. would be an interesting one. Either that or we would all die of tumors and/or lash out around our 40's after years of emotional suppression.

I don't think that we would, as soon the life span of humans will be increased drasticly, and after teaching our children to be logical, it would be natural.

Also, I would like to add two things to this discussion.

The first it that such a society would also be based on rationality, as logic and rationality are very similar, Logic is based on science and Rationality is based on facts. Science finds additional facts, and facts reinforce what science has and inspires more so to discover more facts.

Secondly, I have realised that whilst a logical society would only be able to be done naturally by computers, we cannot do this as it would be logical to them to kill humans, and so humanity will have to imitate the Vulcan race from Start Trek.

I don't see how you could possibly have a society based on rationality as the rational decision is different for each person and decision making itself is an irrational act. For instance, it's conceivable to imagine that had life never started, the universe itself would have had a predestination, the only laws governing it were those of physics. Think about it, every change on an earth without life would have been a change that was always meant to happen, always going to happen because there was nothing to decided it shouldn't happen. It truly was a butterfly effect (albeit one that has had an insignificantly small impact on the universe as a whole) when the first lifeform acted in a way that was not governed by the laws of physics. It gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "to act is to change."

Now if we were to assume this first lifeform was rational it would immediately be posed with a few questions of logic and would probably come up with these answers. "Because I have come to be, I have already changed the course of the universe, as small a change as I am." It determines that it has already become an illogical entity incomparison with the rest of the universe. It would soon realize that being the only lifeform in the universe makes it unique. It realizes that everything else in the universe could care less that an unexpected change in plan has occured.

Here we come to the first issue. What prompts the development of the instinct to survive? Well instinct cannot just appear, that is logical to say the least. Thus it must have been born from physics. Here we get a little technical and even more theoretical. Physics says that the fastest change can occur is at the speed of light. We also know that the universe resists change to an extent. So this means that the force of the existence of this being is great enough to overcome the universes resistance. At the same time, the physics within the being itself is able to resist being overcome. And so while the exterior physics and interior physics are logically the same physics, rationally one would consider the interior physic to be stronger at the moment. This is where instinct comes in. It is a simple interaction of the illogical that life exists. In the big picture of life, all of life can be simplified as pools of resistance to the natural laws of physics. We don't even realize it, but our instinct to survive is not rationality, but physics.

Conclusion (and by extension, a metaphysical definition of life): Life is an illogical, semi-permeable barrier in the Universe that separates two logically operating sectors of the universe. It's illogicality derives from its resistance to the universes physical obligation to restore equilibrium between the two sectors of universe. Since neither universe can satisfactorily destroy the barrier before the speed of light transfers this information between the two universes, the barrier is said to have an instinct or intent, and is living.

So that's my long-winded theory as to why life itself is illogical and thus any rational attempt at a society based on logic would ultimately be irrational is some way.

At 6/13/09 05:49 PM, EKublai wrote: the first lifeform acted in a way that was not governed by the laws of physics.

You just blew neuroscience out of the water.

At 4/13/09 08:11 AM, pyromaniac616 wrote: Newgrounds, do you think that a goverment based purely upon logic, and critical path analysis would work to be a fully functioning society? If you have seen up to bones series three, I mean that a society with only people like Zack, those who are predominatly ruled by logic and sense. If you have not, then Zack is someone who only makes choices if they are logical.

Well obviously dude, it would depend on what you mean by logic because there are several ways "logic" can be used and misused, like Hitler, his logic was to kill the jews, but the logic of other countries were to stop him..... So logic is very susceptable to corruption and manipulation, like religion for example, governments around the world use religion to patronize people into favoring what they want to do (war).
So all governments are ruled by logic and sense but it depends on ther person obviously because there could be a crazy/insane/murderous/psychotic person in power, what is logical to you may be totally illogical to another, personal opinions n stuff. But that doesn't mean all government is illogical, as I said "logic" varies from person to person, it could be logical to me to go out n kill somone but that doesn't mean everyone would agree, its just a big horrible mess to get into so I'm just going to clip it down to this lol.

At 6/13/09 10:20 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Well obviously dude, it would depend on what you mean by logic because there are several ways "logic" can be used and misused, like Hitler, his logic was to kill the jews, but the logic of other countries were to stop him..... So logic is very susceptable to corruption and manipulation

No, see, Hitler's argument were based on false premises and fallacious resoning, not actual logic. People are susceptible to corruption, not logic itself.

The only thing illogical about hitler's actions was that he thought a perfect race could be gotten from one nation. That isn't how genetics work.

If he had instead bred the jews and the others with good aryans then it would've made more sense.

Of course it is sort of illogical to kill people and to go to war, but that hasn't stopped others.

I think Hitler was pretty damn logical.

At 6/14/09 12:44 AM, Elfer wrote:
No, see, Hitler's argument were based on false premises and fallacious resoning, not actual logic. People are susceptible to corruption, not logic itself.

The point still stands dude, he still had his own logic no matter how strange it was, they even did all sorts of tests n experiments n they actually believe that the jewish people had some kind of bad DNA in which they wanted to destroy in some freaky fear that it would somehow affect everyone else.

Again there is really no one right form of logic since logic itself is a matter of opinion, i could say its pure logic that I stab you in the face with a knife because your body would act as a good fertilizer, that doesn't make it right to do so!!! lol

And why isn't it right to do so, you fill in the blank.

G'night 8)

At 6/14/09 12:56 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Again there is really no one right form of logic since logic itself is a matter of opinion,

No, logic is a set of formal rules for drawing conclusions from facts. Sure, you could say that I should be stabbed because my body would make good fertilizer, but you've exercised poor logical skills by ignoring every single other consequence of that action.

So rationalizing an action and making a logical decision are two different things that people often confuse.

Yes. Rationality and rationalization are not the same thing.

The major dilemma that I believe to be present in this hypothetical is the question: Is the act of existing logical? Depending on a person's answer to this, the results will obviously vary considerably regarding the future of society. This is where it gets a bit strange, because:

1. Our beliefs about society, other humans, and essentially the universe are shaped by our experiences.

2. We can logically derive meaning from these experiences.

3. The final result of these experiences and meanings translate into actions, so what is logical to one person may be illogical to another.

This will inevitably result in the destruction of or severely harming society should too many beliefs about what is logical coincide. Of course, then we can argue that non-existence is logical and so on and so forth.

remember youre talking about humans. unstable organism with ancient, primitive remnants.

At 6/14/09 10:13 AM, polym wrote:

At 6/14/09 01:57 AM, MultiCanimefan wrote:

There is always one person that makes the 'subjective' argument

Might as well be me.

Logic is a set of COMMON reasoning. it will always derive to the same answer because it has the same exact process (and it would have to.)

What is logical isn't always true. The OP I presume would be looking to run a fully efficient society based on truths and not half-truths or lies.

You're describing rationality, not logic.

An that's exactly what pyro is describing: the lack of emotions and the drive to have a fully productive and optimally functioning society. He is looking for a rational as well as a logical society.

Did you even read anything?

Yes.

Is it logical to use rationale?

At 6/14/09 10:13 AM, polym wrote: Logic is a set of COMMON reasoning. it will always derive to the same answer because it has the same exact process (and it would have to.)

It would also require the same exact variables - which makes 'perfect' logic impossible. You, and whoever you're communicating with, would need to be omniscient.

At 6/14/09 01:12 AM, Elfer wrote: but you've exercised poor logical skills by ignoring every single other consequence of that action.

It's like the thing with the genie and the wishes. Can you wish for something that can't backfire in any way?

Or rather if you have to take into account ANY possible outcome, can you predict them all and base a logic plan out of that.
I feel this is rather an impossible task, so a logic society can't ever exist in that way.

At 4/19/09 12:00 AM, Shintogoru wrote:

At 4/18/09 02:49 PM, altmeister wrote: Logic can only be achieved by reading the scripture of the Lord. Tell me atheists, how can something come from nothing?

The Bible never says anything about "logic." The terms "logic" and "wisdom," which is the closest semblance of the word "logic" that appears in the Bible, are different.

Actually, the closest that the Bible gets to talking about "logic" is in the very beginning in reference to God's voice. Originally the Greek word used for the word/voice of God was "logos". Now to the ancient Greeks "logos" meant logic, reason and rationale.

This leads some scholars to argue that God when forming the universe, used logic.

As for the topic at hand...

The only way that we can have a society governed by logic and reason and dispassionate analysis is to give up on Democracy/Republicanism. It would require the Philosopher-Kings of Plato's The Republic. Rulers who are trained from birth in reason & philosophy & metaphysics, but whose powers are not based upon public opinion/whim.

At 6/15/09 06:23 AM, RubberTrucky wrote: Or rather if you have to take into account ANY possible outcome, can you predict them all and base a logic plan out of that.
I feel this is rather an impossible task, so a logic society can't ever exist in that way.

Probably not in the sense that we would make perfect decisions based on all of the information in the universe, but it would be possible to consider all of the information available, discuss it and try to come to a reasonable conclusion.

There's miles between that and what Shaggy described, which is basically making up a conclusion based on what you personally want, then finding one fact to support it and ignoring everything else.

At 6/15/09 07:36 AM, Elfer wrote:
There's miles between that and what Shaggy described, which is basically making up a conclusion based on what you personally want, then finding one fact to support it and ignoring everything else.

It's just that it's never really clear how much of said logic is in fact personal.
It's even easier to say that a decision made was a stupid one in hindsight and even more so to reject decision on personal bias. Of course you're going to assume your decisions are more logical then everyone else's.
Look at Hitler and the Jews. Didn't Hitler succeed in building a strong dominant nation only to be took down when the rest of the world jumped it? Didn't he get away with killing countless people?

If emotion is a weakness and Nazi Germany is built upon it, howcome it has grown so big?

At 6/15/09 01:24 AM, Bacchanalian wrote:
It would also require the same exact variables - which makes 'perfect' logic impossible. You, and whoever you're communicating with, would need to be omniscient.

At 6/14/09 03:08 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Is it logical to use rationale?

Or even. Is it logical to be logical?

I think that you HAVE to use some sort of broken logic, or at least compromise your logic, in order to make things work. Like, unless you want to be anal.